Introduction: Lord Bew

Lord Bew—Paul Anthony Elliott Bew, Esquire, having been created Baron Bew, of Donegore in the County of Antrim, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve and the Lord Trimble.

Liverpool: European Capital of Culture

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What provision they are making for extra policing in Liverpool during its year as European Capital of Culture.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I congratulate Liverpool on being awarded the status of European Capital of Culture 2008. Policing of the events taking place in the year is a matter for Merseyside Police, which, like every other police force, has benefited from a sustained increase in funding under this Government.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her congratulations. Is it not true that the majority of police funding comes from central government? Can she explain why the Government were able to give special funding for extra policing for the Commonwealth Games, which lasted for just under a month, but have not made provision for the culture programme, which will last for over a year and will probably bring about 24 million visitors to the city?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that we have made significant increases to the grant to police forces right across the country. An increase in total grants of £98 million, which is 45.5 per cent in real terms, has been made since 1997-98. There has been an increase of £85 million, which is 37.6 per cent in real terms, since 2000-01. Moneys were made available in 2002 for the Commonwealth Games because they were a specific special event that took place over a short period of time. In relation to this situation, Merseyside bid for and was, quite rightly, granted special status. That is something for which it should have made proper provision, and I am sure that it has.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the chief constable of Merseyside, Bernard Hogan-Howe, came to office, he has tackled crime, particularly gun crime, with vigour and imagination? Gone are the days when the comedians would joke that if you shouted "Stop thief!" in Liverpool, everybody started to run. The latest crime survey shows that the figures for violent, household and personal crime in Merseyside are lower than the national average. Does she also agree that the problem is not the reality of crime, which has fallen over the past 10 years, but the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour, which is tackled by the presence of police officers on the streets? The European Capital of Culture initiative deserves the support of the Government and the private sector and should be seen as a positive investment in the future of Merseyside.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on each of those issues. I commend the wonderful work that has been done in Merseyside by the police. We have seen real improvement and change, which has given us all a great deal of pleasure. I also agree that the fear of crime must be tackled with great vigour. I am very pleased that this Government have been able to give significant, palpable support to the police by increasing their numbers to enable them to be more visible and to do their job.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, beyond the plaudits and the commendation of the Merseyside Police Authority and the city of Liverpool for winning the status of Capital of Culture, will the Minister return to the Question put to her by the right reverend Prelate about the inconsistencies in public policy? How can it be right that over the past two years Merseyside Police's budget has been cut by £12 million, so that the force now has to find £9 million to manage its policing, when Manchester received the figure to which the right reverend Prelate referred for the Commonwealth Games and a further £4.5 million to organise policing for the Labour Party conference that took place there? There is clearly an inconsistency in the way this is being dealt with.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is no inconsistency. The noble Lord will know that the final force budget for Liverpool is £307.3 million. That is an increase of 3.7 per cent or £10.9 million. The police precept on council tax is £127.53 for band D property, which is an increase of 5 per cent. That money, I am sure, will be properly spent. The noble Lord knows that part of our expectation is that the police force will provide appropriate policing within its budget. Also, Liverpool asked for this honour and was lucky enough to get it.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, is it true that, as reported, Mr Tony McNulty from another place suggested that Merseyside Police should,
	"look down the back of the couch",
	to find the money to put 200 extra officers on the streets next year? If so, is that a respectful way to treat the city of Liverpool in this historic and unique year?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that my honourable friend was incredibly supportive and respectful to Merseyside. For that reason he acceded to a request to go to Liverpool to talk to local people together with other agencies to see what we could best do to support Merseyside in getting the sort of money and support that it needs to deliver. We understand that that was seen as a very helpful thing for him to do, and I commend him for doing so.

Lord Harrison: My Lords—

Lord Dholakia: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is time to hear from the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Merseyside Police Authority estimates that there will be over 20 million visitors, including just over 4.5 million from abroad. This is a prelude to the Olympics in 2012, particularly in relation to safer policing. In light of the difference between the Government and the Merseyside Police Authority, would it not be wise to invite Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to assess, independently both of the Government and of the Merseyside Police Authority, the actual policing needs in Liverpool and how they could be met?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I reassure him that appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that the necessary policing for the 2012 Olympics is well provided for. Those discussions are already under way. Noble Lords have mentioned the Commonwealth Games, but I remind them that the Commonwealth Games in 2002 took place over a short period of time; only £5 million was granted, although that is a significant sum, but the people were coming to a very small area over an intense period. That is not the case for the celebrations in 2008 for Liverpool. Liverpool has been planning for this for a number of years now.

Crime: Rape

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review the law on the compensation of victims of rape and other sexual offences.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in law, victims of rape and other sexual offences are entitled to compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which became statutory in 1996, following the passage of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. Victims of rape and other sexual crime can also pursue a perpetrator for damages in the civil courts for the tort of assault or battery. We have no plans to review or change those arrangements.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it possible that one reason for high rates of false allegations and low rates of conviction for rape is that a minority—I stress that—of women make false allegations in order to win compensation which, in the case of rape, is £11,000? Why do we not move to the German system, where the state does not pay and where compensation follows civil action, as against the state paying? Surely the trauma of rape requires not state-funded windfalls but counselling services that really help victims.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, a victim of rape should get both compensation and counselling and support. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As the noble Lord will know, it is very important that we make sure that where convictions are made, people can get some kind of recompense for the trauma and injury that they may have received. As for the reasons why people make false allegations, I do not agree that one of the primary objectives is to get £11,000. There may be very serious reasons why people do that, which we need to consider.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Does this not show how wrong it is to have a tariff system of compensation in respect of women who have suffered rape when there are so many variants—so many differences—with regard to the trauma suffered by the victim? Is it not time that the Government started to increase levels of compensation, which have remained steady, if not diminished, during the past 10 years under this Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I understand it, the tariffs were set in 1996 on a scale which lists 440 injuries. The noble Lord will know that the Green Paper was issued in December 2005 to consider the compensation scheme. Having transferred it to the Ministry of Justice, we await our final deliberations, but the ambition is that we have a speedier and simpler system focused on the victim.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I did not quite understand the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He implied that people were making unfair or untrue allegations in order to get compensation. Can the Minister clarify this point? Do you get compensation only if the case is proved; or, as the noble Lord said, can you just make a claim and get compensation without any proof?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the claim is made after the individual is convicted. However, the basis of the claim is different in a civil case, as the noble Baroness will know. The issue raised by the noble Lord about unfounded claims is important. Where those running the compensation scheme become aware that a claim has been made wrongly, they will seek wherever possible to reclaim the money.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, what action can the Government take to increase the low rate of conviction for rape? Less than 6 per cent of all those charged with rape are convicted. That means that thousands of women in this country have been raped but will never get any compensation. Also, when does she expect the Government to respond to the consultation on rape, which started in spring 2006 and ended in July 2006? Does she agree that that could form the basis of a wide-ranging debate in your Lordships' House, rather than having a series of monthly Questions on the subject?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand that the consultation response will be available shortly. I hope that my noble friend will pursue the idea that we have a debate in your Lordships' House; that would be extremely valuable. We seek to support victims of rape in a number of ways, by ensuring not only that there are convictions but that people who are traumatised are given the right kind of support. We have sexual assault referral centres where medical care and counselling can be given very quickly and sympathetically. We have sexual violence advisers, and £3 million has been put into setting up an adviser system across the country to provide essential services for those who have been raped. There is a victims' fund. To date, 100 organisations have received some form of funding. Victim Support also plays an important part. We have tried to ensure in these and many other ways that those who suffer this terrible crime come forward and that we get the convictions.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many women in, say, the past five years have availed themselves of the doubtful benefit of a civil action and have relived the trauma in order to top up the miserably low tariff of £11,000 under the scheme?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have no idea whether any women have done that. As I said earlier, however, my view is that people are unlikely to make false allegations in order to receive £11,000.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the fact that a male defendant in a rape trial is acquitted in no sense means that the woman has been making a false allegation and lied to the court?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, my Lords. The convictions rates, which, as my noble friend Lady Gale has indicated, are of the order of 6 per cent, demonstrate how difficult it is to get a conviction where it may be one person's word against another's and there is a need to ensure that people are convicted where proof is available. That is actually what it points to.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that compensation does not depend on the conviction of an individual, because very often that individual cannot be traced? It depends simply on the victim being able to satisfy the board that they are entitled to compensation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows very well, claims in civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, so there is an important distinction between such claims and those made in relation to criminal matters.

EU Committee: Scrutiny Reserve

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they have over-ridden the scrutiny reserve resolution relating to the work of the European Union Select Committee on 157 occasions in the past three years.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government take their commitment to parliamentary scrutiny extremely seriously. Over-rides occur in a small percentage of cases; for example, as a result of the speed of decision-making in Brussels. The Government are committed to minimising the number of over-rides. In all cases where over-rides prove necessary, Ministers will continue to account for their actions by writing to the chairman of the House of Lords European Union Committee.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but does she not agree that this almost contemptuous use of the scrutiny over-ride in the past three years has had two effects? First, it has weakened the scrutiny of European legislation. Secondly, it is in clear breach of the scrutiny reserve resolution of 1999. Surely at a time when the majority of our law is now made in Brussels, scrutiny should be strengthened, not weakened, to restore at least some control by our Parliament over EU legislation.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I think that all members of the European scrutiny committee would agree with me that the Government are certainly not contemptuous of the scrutiny of documents from the European Union. We work extremely closely with that committee to ensure that the number of over-rides is absolutely minimal. In the past year, I believe it was 7 per cent. I have a graph in front of me, with which I will gladly supply the House, which shows that the trend of over-rides is going down and down. Seven per cent in the past year is an extremely good record.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as a current member of the Select Committee on the European Union, may I ask the Minister whether she agrees that a frequent cause of scrutiny over-rides is the delay in departmental replies to queries put by the chairman of the Select Committee? Does she also agree that a delay of five months in a reply from the Home Office, for which it has apologised, is simply unacceptable by any standards?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I completely agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. Of course, five months is absolutely unnecessary, but there are circumstances in which we work with the scrutiny committee to ensure that over-rides are avoided. The clerks of the scrutiny committee and the civil servants from the department work very closely.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently made some powerful proposals to strengthen the role of Parliament in relation to the Executive? Does she not agree that this is one area where the strengthening of the role of Parliament against the Executive where Ministers do not pay sufficient attention to making sure that good replies are given on time to committees should be one of his priorities?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at this extremely closely and we are sure that it is an area in which Parliament is made more accountable.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when Britain had the presidency in the second half of 2005 the scrutiny reserve was over-ridden on 22 occasions and Parliament was denied the opportunity to debate a matter before it became law? Surely, on those occasions, there could be no question of pressure from other states to get on with the business. The Government had control of the agenda. What possible reason could there be for over-riding the scrutiny reserve in those cases except to stick to an agenda set by the bureaucrats in Brussels?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that even when a country has the presidency of the European Union certain proposals are already set in motion. It is a very complex structure. I cannot confirm that there were 22 occasions on which there were over-rides during the UK presidency, but I will seek further information for the noble Lord.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the whole system is entirely unsatisfactory? A Minister can go to Europe without any parliamentary approval, make decisions or agree to make decisions, and then come back and say to Parliament, "The decision that I have made, without your prior consent, is binding on you". Surely, that is not right in a democratic society.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. It is not an unsatisfactory situation. We have a rigorous system of scrutiny in this country and I am very proud, as a Member of this House, of the excellent work undertaken by the European scrutiny committee.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Baroness entirely happy that the number of occasions runs at approximately one per week? What proposal does she have to reduce that number, not just the percentage, which may vary according to the degree of flood tide that the proposals are running?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, according to my colleagues behind me, who are much better at maths than I am, 7 per cent of proposals are over-ridden at the moment, which means that one in 14 is over-ridden.

Noble Lords: Per week.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, that is per week, which is a fairly good record. An example of an unavoidable over-ride concerns a common position renewing restrictive measures against certain individuals in Uzbekistan, which was agreed yesterday at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. If that had not been done, the sanctions could not have been continued. In such a case, it is very important that the system of over-rides can continue, although we seek to diminish the number of occasions on which there are over-rides.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the reasons for over-rides is that the parliamentary year is somewhat shorter than the year worked by the Council of Ministers? Therefore, frequently, decisions have to be made in the absence of Parliament sitting. If noble Lords opposite think that the work of the European Scrutiny Committee is so vital, does my noble friend agree that the Government ought to find better times on which we can debate some of its deliberations?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that it is very difficult to synchronise the Westminster and Brussels timetables. But, again, I pay tribute to the committee in this House, the excellent chairman of which has made arrangements to sift proposals during Recesses. Therefore we have a better scrutiny record in this House than in the other place. As for the timing of debates, of course, that is a matter for the usual channels.

Iraq: Field Hospitals

Baroness Emerton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the clinical services and welfare support available to sick and injured troops serving in Iraq are sufficient to meet their needs in the light of increased indirect mortar and rocket attacks on field hospitals and surrounding areas.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is in theatre a major medical incident plan which can be invoked if it is likely that additional medical facilities are required. This plan is constantly reviewed and has been invoked previously and proven effective. In addition, force protection measures are being enhanced to improve infrastructure protection against indirect fire. Details of these plans cannot be released; to do so would seriously compromise operational security.

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and informative Answer. I declare an interest as a trustee of the St John and British Red Cross Defence Medical Welfare Service, under contract with the Ministry of Defence. Currently there are two welfare officers serving in the field hospital in Basra under military command. The chief executive officer of the Defence Medical Welfare Service has recently returned from a three-day visit to the hospital, where he saw at first hand the excellent facilities and equipment that are available in the hospital and, more importantly, the skills and compassion of the clinical team and welfare officers. Can the Minister give an assurance that, in the forthcoming committee of inquiry into the welfare of our Armed Forces, account will be taken of the professional welfare officers?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks. The department fully recognises the vital role played by the Defence Medical Welfare Service and others, which provide for the practical and emotional support of our troops and their families. This will, of course, be reflected in the evidence that the department is submitting to the House of Commons Defence Committee.

Lord Garden: My Lords, the Question recognises the increasing hazards to our forces and the welfare support forces as we draw down our bases in Iraq to a single base. This raises another strategic question. Can the Minister assure the House that there are forces on call at high readiness to provide rescue and casualty evacuation capability in the event of a major contingency?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the United States has brought in protocols to deal with brain injuries, psychological and physical, as a result of blast injuries. I understand the MoD is waiting to see the results of this programme despite widespread medical evidence that the Americans are doing the right thing. In the light of that, will the Government reconsider this?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I shall certainly take back to the department the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I shall write to him and leave copies in both Libraries.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that those who are seriously injured and ill get sent back to the appropriate hospital in the UK as soon as possible?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. The medical attention that our troops receive in theatre is a first step. They receive extremely good—world-class—attention, but it is always with the view to getting them out and home as soon as possible.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, what studies are being undertaken into the psychological trauma of those evacuated with battlefield injuries? It has been a constant complaint that those in the Territorial Army have received less than adequate attention.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we seek continually to improve our psychological support in theatre, at Selly Oak and at Headley Court. It is under constant review.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I saw the work of the Defence Medical Services in the first Gulf War and realised the enormous value of the arm and the service that it provides. There is a suggestion that, as a result of the inquiry, its role may be undertaken by SSAFA. That is entirely inappropriate because SSAFA's role is with families. Will the Minister ensure that, as a result of the inquiry, the work of this valuable arm and the service continues and two separate welfare services are provided in whatever is ultimately produced?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the department, in its evidence to the inquiry, will put strongly the case for retaining the present role of the Defence Medical Welfare Service. Other charitable bodies and organisations play equally important but different roles.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has made a generous settlement for service doctors?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government have accepted in full the pay recommendations of the independent body for service medical and dental officers. The recommendations seek a balance with the Government's approach to public-sector pay, including the Chancellor's view that pay awards should be in line with the inflation target of 2 per cent, the prevailing economic conditions and DMS manning, recruitment and retention.

Lord Patel: My Lords, what is the current shortfall below target in the medical workforce of the Armed Forces? I declare an interest as a member of the diversity panel of the Armed Forces and a former member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot say with accuracy what the current shortfall is, if there is one, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord.

International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Bill [HL]

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Services Bill [HL]

Read a third time.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
	"Professional representations
	Section 10 shall apply mutatis mutandis to representations by approved regulators whether in their regulatory or representative capacity."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment is identical to Amendment No. 38 which we tabled in Committee. As noble Lords are aware, the Legal Services Bill establishes, among other institutions, a Consumer Panel, which is entitled both to make representations and to be consulted. Contrary to the structure in the Financial Services Act, however, there is no equivalent practitioners' panel.
	Accordingly in Committee we tabled Amendment No. 38, which was in identical terms to the amendment before your Lordships today. It was clear from our debate in Committee that the Minister accepted this amendment, either in terms or in equivalent terms. I turn to what she said in Hansard:
	"I remind noble Lords that we have already accepted Amendment No. 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which required that Clause 10 will apply mutatis mutandis to representations by proposed regulators, whether in the regulatory or representative capacities".—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1117.]
	On Report, however, the Minister was not prepared to honour that undertaking. I am not suggesting that she behaved in any way reprehensibly —I suspect that others gave her very strict riding instructions—but the undertaking is there, and it is unequivocal. Others of your Lordships, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, have withdrawn amendments that they might otherwise have pressed to a vote because of that undertaking.
	I suggest to the Minister, as I did on Report, that there is a clear convention in your Lordships' House that having made such a statement, whether she regrets it or not on reflection, the Minister must accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment, not just for the reasons given by my noble friend, which I wholly accept, but for another reason. I am a Clementi man. The amendment safeguards the freedom of the approved regulators to make representation, which is, to my mind, and I think to Sir David's mind, of the essence of the type of relationship that should exist, of which there are as yet no words of expression in the Bill. It is essential that representation and consultation should ensue if the regime is to work not only in the interests of the consumer and the legal profession but in the public interest. Where possible, one should seek agreement.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am just a simple Lord. I take words as they come. We have an amendment that clearly states:
	"Section 10 shall apply mutatis mutandis to representations by approved regulators whether in their regulatory or representative capacity".
	My noble friend read out the Minister's words. I remind noble Lords exactly what the Minister said in the terms that my noble friend has just outlined and reflect that this was said in an attempt to dissuade the Committee on its fifth day from moving further amendments. The Minister said:
	"I remind noble Lords that we have already accepted Amendment No. 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which required that Clause 10 will apply mutatis mutandis to representations by proposed regulators, whether in the regulatory or representative capacities. That consultation will have more force as a consequence of my acceptance of that principle".—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1117.]
	When we last discussed this amendment, the Minister said, "I only accepted it in principle". But that principle makes it clear that the Minister has accepted that Clause 10 will apply mutatis mutandis et cetera. Nothing could be simpler.
	Something has been going on, because the Minister has always been straightforward. I know of no other Minister who listens more intently to what is said in this place than the noble Baroness. If something has been going on that we are unaware of, let us draw a line under that. My noble friend is rightly seeking to ensure that we can have this important principle enshrined in the Bill. It is easy to do. It is only Amendment No. 1. All the Minister has to say is, "I accept the amendment".

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I suggest what happened? The Minister went back to the Lord Chancellor and said, "I have agreed this on the Floor of the House and given the Government's word on it". The Lord Chancellor said, "I don't care. You are not accepting it. Get me out of it. Resist". I suggest that that is exactly what happened. Under those circumstances, I feel very sorry for the Minister, because I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. She always listens, she always smiles and she is always good natured. She is smiling now, justifiably. I bet she hates being in this position, because it is very uncomfortable for her. She should stick to her own guns.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the measured way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has brought back an issue that he feels extremely strongly about. I am enchanted by the concerns that noble Lords have for me, but worried that my powers of persuasion, particularly in the eyes of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, are clearly not up to much if that were the situation that had arisen. I do not have any regrets about what I did. I will explain what I did and why.
	I do not accept the idea that, because of our discussions in Committee, noble Lords felt that they did not need or were unable to bring back amendments. I made it clear in my discussions with noble Lords between Committee and Report that I would not be bringing this amendment forward. I made that clear at Report, so there was always the opportunity to come back at this stage. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I recall that we had a discussion about possibilities in which this issue might be raised. Anyway, if noble Lords had felt that they had been misled, I would have been perfectly happy to see amendments today that addressed the issue. Indeed, we have the noble Lord's amendment. I am quite sure what the outcome of this debate will be as a consequence.
	I will put my position as clearly as I can, because I like my reputation as a listening Minister and I believe that I take away and consider carefully everything that is said to me.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I always consult my colleagues. But, most important, I take legal advice and parliamentary counsel advice that goes alongside that. I would be distraught were there any suggestion that I misled the House. I have thought about that a lot.
	This is what I believe I did. I accept completely that the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and other noble Lords were seeking to ensure that this Bill was even-handed in its approach to the Consumer Panel and the role of the professions. I think that noble Lords accepted, after our lengthy and helpful debates in Committee, that there was a need to create a Consumer Panel. There was no such body; therefore, for the Consumer Panel to be able either to take judicial review or make proper representations, it needed to be set up properly. The concern that was expressed was whether that shifted the weight of representation away from the professions and the legal services to the point at which the Bill was in a sense up-ended. That we did not wish to do.
	I took away Amendment No. 38. I did not accept it on the Floor, but it is reasonable to say that I might not have done that in any event, because I would have had to consult. I took it back and took legal and parliamentary counsel advice on whether the principle behind even-handedness was already in the Bill or not.
	I have been back several times and the advice that I have received consistently is that scattered throughout the Bill—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has been concerned that it is scattered—is a provision that allows for consultation with the professions. The principal way in which the professions can make representations, by the nature of the organisations that they are, and in which they have traditionally sought to make representations, secures them mutatis mutandis. Therefore, my advice was that, were we to insert anything further, we would be in danger of moving the Bill in the other direction.
	What lies between us is simply that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with his experience—and no doubt he will be joined by other noble Lords—does not think that we have achieved what I believe we have achieved. Noble Lords will have to make their decision whether we have or have not done so from what I and the noble Lord have said. That is the joy of being in your Lordships' House—it is up to noble Lords to determine. From my perspective, I have sought to ensure that what I agreed to do has been achieved, which was to make sure that the measure was even-handed. It is my contention that it has been achieved. That may not satisfy noble Lords, but I believe that I have not misled the House in so doing.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am, as always, most grateful to the Minister for her explanation, the core of which suggested that, having made this initial undertaking on 22 January, which was when the debate on Amendment No. 38 took place, she went away and discussed the matter with her team; and on mature reflection decided that the amendment was not only unnecessary but would push the balance too far in the other direction. In other words, the practitioner would have had a stronger hand to play, once the act was implemented, than the consumer.
	The difficulty about that argument is the statement that I read out to your Lordships:
	"I remind noble Lords that we have already accepted Amendment No. 38".—[Official Report, 21/2/07; col. 1117.]
	That was said more than a month after the debate on the amendment, which took place on 22 January. The commitment that the Minister gave the Committee about Amendment No. 38 was given at least five weeks after the debate, so quite a long period of reflection had taken place; five weeks after our debate on the amendment, she still felt completely committed to it.
	The substance of this issue is secondary to the constitutional convention. What matters is that the undertaking was given unequivocally to your Lordships' House. I am really disappointed that any Government could resile from such a clear-cut undertaking.
	I am not going to press this amendment because I believe that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves. When they conclude that they are and this Bill has been to the Commons, I am confident that by the time it comes back to the Lords we will find this amendment in it. We do not need to vote on this matter. The convention ought to be strong enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 64 [Modification of the Board's functions under section 62(1)(b)]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Clause 64, page 36, line 30, leave out from "of" to "the" in line 31 and insert "giving effect to indemnification arrangements and compensation arrangements"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 12 and 15 to 31. This group of amendments makes consequential amendments to Schedules 3, 5 and 16 and updates the Law Society's powers to require information, as I indicated I would do on the last day of Report. I do not propose to go into detail on the consequential amendments, suffice to say that they are necessary in order to make the amendments agreed at previous stages of the Bill work properly. However, I should like to say a little more on the amendments that I committed on Report to table.
	Amendments Nos. 20 and 25, for example, are necessary to update the powers of the Law Society to obtain information relevant to an investigation into a solicitor, a recognised body or a manager or employee of a recognised body. Amendment No. 20 allows the Law Society to obtain information from a person who is not connected to the solicitor or firm under investigation. This is necessary in order to close an existing loophole where information relevant to an investigation would be outside the society's scope if held by a third party. The power may be exercised only through a High Court order.
	The amendments also aim to ensure that investigations are not frustrated by providing for it to be an offence to falsify, conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of a document which a person knows or suspects to be relevant to the investigation; or recklessly or deliberately to provide information which is false or misleading in a material particular.
	Amendment No. 22 ensures that these updated powers apply effectively to recognised bodies and their managers, employees and interest holders, and that the powers may also be exercised for the purpose of investigating a body's continuing suitability to be recognised. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we are perfectly content with these amendments. In harping back to Schedule 16, I again welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, confirmed last week that all the matters of concern to us in that schedule would be dealt with, if not today by government amendments, then when the Bill crosses over to another place. I see both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, nodding, so I think that I can take that as a secure commitment on behalf of the Government.
	I raise one other matter with the noble Baroness. She may recall that on 8 May we had a debate about an amendment which I tabled concerning the relationship between the regulatory obligations in Part 5 and the obligations that any ABS might have to its shareholders. The noble Baroness will recall that we tabled an amendment which said in clear terms that where there is a conflict between what the shareholders regarded as their obligations under company law and what the regulator regarded as his obligations under Part 5, the obligations of the regulator would be paramount.
	At the end of her response, the noble Baroness and I had an exchange about the appropriateness of my insisting on the amendment. The noble Baroness said that she was advised by the Department of Trade and Industry that if the amendment appeared in the Bill, it could produce certain conflictual situations. Thereafter, she undertook to furnish me with the DTI's advice before Third Reading. She said:
	"I am more than happy to set out in writing the concerns of the Department of Trade and Industry ... If I set that out in writing, there will be plenty of time before Third Reading for the noble Lord to look at it".—[Official Report, 8/5/07; col. 1334.]
	I have not had that in writing. I recognise that I have not tabled an amendment on the matter now but I should be content if the noble Baroness could give an undertaking to your Lordships' House that if the matter cannot be settled now, it will be one to which whoever deals with the Bill in another place will direct their minds.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In a letter to him this week, I said that my officials were in touch with officials at the Department of Trade and Industry and that I hoped to be in a position to comment further at Third Reading, but that if that were not possible, I would write to him again on the issue and that I would be happy to ensure that his concern was dealt with. I have just been given a summary of the DTI's concerns regarding his previous Amendment No. 435. I could read them out, but I am not sure that it would be of benefit to noble Lords.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this is an important issue, because we are on the threshold of these alternative business structures. Is it clear in Part 5 that if there is a conflict between what the shareholders want and what the regulator wants, the regulator will always prevail? At Report stage, the noble Baroness for the first time appeared to raise doubts that the DTI had, in turn, raised with her regarding the outcome of any conflict. There would be extremely serious implications for the operation of the ABS system if there were circumstances in which shareholders could override regulators. Indeed, that would undermine the basis on which the Government and the Opposition parties had been dealing with the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am happy to try to clarify this matter. I am not sure how it fits into what we are doing, but it is important to put it on the record, as the noble Lord said. We were considering an amendment to Clause 169, if noble Lords need to look back at that. That amendment sought to ensure that, in the context of ABS firms, lawyers' duties to comply with their professional conduct obligations would override any other obligations, including their directors' duties to shareholders. We have made it clear that an override provision is unnecessary as long as lawyers and licensed bodies have a statutory obligation to comply with their professional conduct rules. Those statutory obligations are contained in Clause 169 and are reinforced by Clause 88. They provide that non-lawyers in licensed alternative business structure companies or firms cannot do anything that causes or substantially contributes to a breach by lawyers or the licensed body of their professional conduct duties. The duties cannot be compromised by other obligations, just as companies and company employees have different kinds of statutory obligations and directors cannot cause breaches of those obligations in the name of their duties to shareholders.
	I understand the concern regarding directors' duties to a company and its shareholders, yet we emphasise that those duties are intended to be cumulative with any other duties to which the director may be subject, not in conflict with them. The duties owed by directors in Part 10 of the 2006 Act do not require directors to break the law and could never form a defence to a breach of another legal obligation. Instead, they must be understood in the context of the wider legal framework. Section 172 of that Act, which requires directors to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members as a whole, is flexible enough to allow for directors' duties and the duties arising under other law to operate harmoniously without any need for specific provision in other legislation.
	As noble Lords will know, we have just completed a codification of company law, including directors' duties, in the Companies Act 2006. The DTI is concerned that an override provision in relation to lawyers' duties, such as that proposed by the noble Lord, would risk creating uncertainty in company law and other law to which companies are subject, because it would be unclear as to how directors' duties would interact with regulatory obligations in areas other than legal services.
	In other words, the Companies Act recognises that in fulfilling their duties to shareholders, directors of companies must have the flexibility to have regard to a wide range of objectives and to act in furtherance of purposes other than the benefit of the company members, where applicable. It may be taken as read that directors are required to comply with other legal obligations. We do not wish to state that explicitly, because we risk negative inferences for other regulatory legislation.
	I am content with that explanation, which I am happy to ensure the noble Lord has in writing. I will also ensure that copies are placed in the Library of your Lordships' House and sent to other noble Lords who have spoken on that amendment and on the Bill. It deals with the fact that there is not an issue of concern; rather, it explains why adding anything further to the Bill could create uncertainty, which I am sure the noble Lord does not want.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall not take this matter further, other than adding a few words in conclusion. I remain bewildered that, on the one hand, the noble Baroness can say that there is no conflict and that the provisions in the Bill are entirely consistent with the regulator's hegemony; but that, on the other hand, she is reluctant to say that in the Bill. If the underlying facts confirm the regulator's hegemony, I see no reason why on Earth that cannot be said in the Bill for the sake of certainty. However, I think that this is now a matter for another place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 83 [Licensing rules]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Clause 83, page 48, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) appropriate provision requiring the licensing authority to consider the likely impact of a proposed application on access to justice when determining the application,"

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have followed the Bill closely—and I am delighted to see that many are still here after the passage of so much time—will know that we have been engaged in a debate with the Government about access to justice in relation to the licensing provisions under Part 5 of the Bill. Our initial amendment in Committee was softened on Report but we still failed to ensnare the noble Baroness. Despite the period of reflection between Report and Third Reading, we have seen no movement from the Government and so we have retabled our Report amendment.
	As your Lordships are well aware, the concerns to which the amendment seeks to respond have preoccupied all your Lordships who have taken an interest in Part 5. Indeed, even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at one memorable moment, indicated his support.
	Part 5, indisputably, takes us into new territory. We simply do not know what the impact of alternative business structures will be on access to justice, and the amendment seeks to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted into the likely impact. The noble Baroness does not like that because, she asserts, it would give too much weight in the decision-making process to one of the eight objectives to which all the regulators must have regard.
	My response to that is twofold. First, all the amendment obliges the licensing authority to do is to conduct a thorough investigation into the access to justice implications of the proposal. The obligation is for the licensor to put itself in the picture as thoroughly as possible before testing the proposal against all eight objectives. Within the scope of the amendment, the licensor is perfectly entitled to investigate in as much detail as it thinks appropriate any of the other seven objectives.
	Secondly, even ifI am wrong about my understanding of my own amendment, there is, in my submission, nothing wrong or unprecedented in Governments requiring decision-makers to give particular or significant weight to a relevant consideration, and, in this case, there is a powerful a priori reason for doing so. I beg to move.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 13 which stands in my name and touches on access to justice. Noble Lords will recall that lying behind the proposal is the fear that some of the new business structures will be powerful economic players. I am thinking in particular of larger, better-resourced firms of solicitors, possibly amalgamated with other professions, which will in effect wipe out the small firms of solicitors, operating perhaps in difficult circumstances, in the high street or in rural areas.
	We have had evidence from noble Lords about the anxieties on this topic of solicitors in various parts of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about Wales; the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, spoke about Yorkshire and Cumbria; the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the anxieties in the West Country; and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he was particularly concerned about rural areas. There is no doubt about this. Perhaps the most compelling evidence came from the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. In his capacity as Lord Chief Justice, he travelled the land and became well aware of anxieties among solicitors throughout the country. The fact that there is such anxiety has not been challenged and we have not had proper evidence of the likely economic outcome.
	There has been a new development of which your Lordships should be aware. On 9 May, the day after we previously spoke about the matter, the Ministry of Justice came into life—it sprung fully formed from the helmet—and immediately published a manifesto entitled Justice—a new approach. That is relevant because, throughout, it advocates the fact that in setting up the new department the Government are adopting as one of their principles the importance of access to justice.I will give brief citations from pages 11, 15, 16 and 20.
	On page 11, the department states as one of its objectives:
	"We will provide access to justice for all: by making help and advice and financial support available at the point of need and at the earliest stage, especially for the most vulnerable".
	On page 15, it states:
	"We will promote justice by: ensuring that our justice system is accessible and effective, respected and understood".
	On page 16, under "Provision for Justice", is the important passage:
	"An effective justice system is not just about the courts and the judges; it concerns the extent to which the public has access to that system. Access depends on understanding one's rights and knowing how to go about enforcing them ... Access to justice means making sure that people, and particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, are able to get the help, advice and support that they need".
	All this cries out for having local advice centres and local solicitors who can do exactly that. Finally, on page 20, the department says:
	"We will work together with communities to give them a greater stake in how justice is delivered in their area, improving the visibility, accessibility and accountability of justice".
	None of that can be compatible with a separate government policy which, if implemented, is likely to have the consequence of wiping out a lot of local solicitors who could give advice. This would appear to be a case in which the Lord Chancellor, wearing his hat as Secretary of State for Justice, wishes to have a unified approach—not one department doing one thing and another bit of the system doing something else. On page 27, the department states:
	"Working closely with the other key departments, the Ministry of Justice provides the opportunity to look at the system as a whole; not as a set of constituent parts, but as a consistent, coherent whole".
	The other piece of fresh information that your Lordships should have relates to Germany. We have touched on this subject on two or three earlier occasions. The Joint Committee—I apologise to the House because I should have declared that I was a member of the Joint Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I am a member of the legal profession, I was on the Bar Council and I was once chairman of the Bar. The Joint Committee had evidence from the German equivalent of the Bar Council and the Law Society rolled into one. Its evidence brought to our notice that, on the continent, what we were doing would be regarded as unacceptable. It would not be possible for a German lawyer—a Rechtsanwalt—to be a member of one of these new bodies, particularly if it had outside funding.
	I raised that point on the previous occasion when we discussed this matter, and the Minister replied:
	"Noble Lords talked about the German BRAK. On a recent overseas visit, I heard that the German Parliament is looking to legislate in this direction. The relationship between the reaction of the German BRAK and what is happening in Germany may be relevant to our deliberations, but it looks as if Germany may be heading in the same direction. We will have to find more information because that was new to me, but it appears to be the case".—[Official Report, 8/5/07; col. 1410.]
	I thought the sensible thing to do was to write to BRAK—the Minister has my letter—to ask what is happening and what legislation the German Parliament is looking at. The answer has come back, and there are three relevant points. First, a legal services Bill is before the Bundestag; secondly, there is a controversial clause about adding new professions to the list of three with which lawyers may unite; and thirdly, on the point we have been talking about, the external funding, the relevant paragraph in the letter from Dr Dombek, the president of BRAK—which I immediately copied to the Minister—is:
	"Regarding the Alternative Business Structures envisaged by Part 5 of the Legal Services Bill it is our understanding that firms authorised to provide legal services could have shareholders from outside the profession like banks and insurance companies. It is further our understanding that the management of such firms must not necessarily be in the hands of a majority of lawyers. The German draft bill ... does not include legislative proposals in this direction. On the contrary, interested parties in Germany have lobbied the government and the political parties to allow third party investments into law firms. However both the Government and the politicians have rejected these proposals as, in their opinion third party investment would be a threat to the independence of the lawyer. Nobody should have the possibility to be able to determine a lawyer's advice following economic interests. As the BRAK shares these concerns I took the liberty of writing my letter of 26 June 2006 to you and pointing out the difficulties that will arise for Anglo-German law firms in Germany if the firm or the lawyer decides to opt for third party investment".
	On the basis of this information to the House, there is no indication whatever that the German Parliament is moving in a similar manner, and there is evidence that it is thought to be totally unacceptable to move in any such direction.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, these Benches fully support the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Neill of Bladen. From the very beginning of the Bill, I have expressed my opposition to the alternative business structure, drawing, as I do, upon my experience in a small high street firm of solicitors for some five or six years in my youth and my knowledge of these firms while practising at the Bar ever since.
	The Government may try to portray the stance of lawyers who believe in the small firm as reactionary, conservative or in their own private interests. That is not the case. Over the decades there has been strong competition between local firms for business. They compete with each other in terms of cost and fees, in efficiency and in providing a service to the communities from which they spring. All that is undermined by the Government's approach here that we introduce marketing forces; that price is the only thing that matters; and the fact than there may be conflicts of interests within large concerns, whether insurance companies, motoring services of whatever, which can be ignored.
	We do not believe that that is the right approach. The public are better served by lawyers, who are absolutely independent and who stand against the legislation that may be put forward or government departments where people are seeking to secure their rights to social security, and so on. We are very much concerned that alternative business structures will see this service disappear to be replaced by something that is very much less of utility to the people of this country. I am amazed that this comes from a so-called Labour Government. I am reminded they are new Labour. That is even worse. It is astonishing that it should come from that source. Perhaps it is not so astonishing because I have commented on the authoritarian streak of this Government.
	The lawyer stands independent of government to protect the citizen. This Bill, with its suggestion of alternative business structures, without any examination of whether it is necessary or appropriate in a particular area, such as my own area in north-east Wales, undermines the principle of access to justice.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the principle enshrined in these amendments. I do not disagree with the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Before becoming a judge I had, like him, the immense privilege of being for many years a solicitor, and thereafter a member of the Bar. That gives one some insight into the immense worth of these two independent professions. Their independence is tied up with their integrity, which is tied up with their reputation for competence, which I think is second to none in the world.
	It may be a coincidence that in all countries with comparable situations to England and Wales there have as yet been no moves towards the ABS system. The House I am sure is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, for the information concerning the situation at the Bundestag.
	However, the case does not rest of necessity on the argument put forward with such clear articulation by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I do not dispute that case, but it can be put effectively at a much lower level. It is this: business and professional life are entirely different worlds. There are situations where they coalesce and situations where they compete.
	Part 5 creates a massive new experiment. That experiment may have the capacity for good, or it may have the capacity for evil, damage and injury to institutions that we hold dear. No one in this House or elsewhere can foresee exactly where it will lead. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, takes the principle much further than that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but the case for the two amendments is that Parliament can do one of two things. It can allow Part 5 of the legislation to proceed into the unknown by taking this huge and potentially dangerous step, knowing that the day may come when it may have to reconsider most drastically exactly what has been brought about. The other alternative is prudence and a cautious precept—to place the onus where it belongs; on the advocates of this drastic change. Those advocates should indeed prove their case before Part 5 is implemented. The possibilities are enormous. The potential for evil could be very, very great. Prudence demands the acceptance of the principle of these amendments.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I wholly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for all the reasons given. Those reasons have been so very well expressed that it would be quite unnecessary to improve on them. Indeed, I do not think that I could. I also very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Within the concept of justice in these circumstances, it must be accepted that a decision must be taken on the proportionate balance of the Clause 1 regulatory objectives considered as a whole. That is the judicial process that has commended itself to your Lordships, as the amendments of my noble friend Lord Kingsland in effect establish a new regime of overarching importance. An amendment to this effect was tabled in my name and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. It was removed from the Marshalled List on the advice of the Public Bill Office. I have been asked why my amendments were not moved. They could not have been spoken to other than on Third Reading. They would have implemented the new regime proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I thought that I had better explain why they were put on the list and why they were taken off it.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I should explain how strongly I support Amendments Nos. 3 and 13. It was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that amendments should be tabled,
	"to ensure that the impact of ABSs on access to justice, particularly in rural areas, informs the decision-making process for licensing an ABS firm".
	That is virtually the amendment that my noble friend Lord Kingsland has tabled. In their response, the Government said that they agreed with the committee, so I have been awaiting an amendment to implement our recommendation. Sadly, it did not arrive on the Marshalled List. The fact that it is here is due wholly to my noble friend, for which I am very grateful.
	I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, on bringing forward an amendment that is the best of all those that he has tabled. It gives us a chance to have an in-depth look at this experiment, which I am sure the House would want us to do.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am prompted to intervene briefly because of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who suggested that there is an alternative course of action. One of his propositions was that we might, if this proved in practice to be damaging, seek to reverse it by an Act of Parliament. I am bound to say that that would be enormously difficult. If Part 5 goes forward, it will create property rights. It seems to me that, under the provisions of the Human Rights Act, we will find it extraordinarily difficult to embark on a dismantling of this scheme. It is improbable that we could embark on such a course with commensurate ease. The very difficulty of reversing after we have legislated makes it so much more important that we take our time now and exhaust every possible avenue of inquiry into the potential impact of what is being done.
	In the light of the extraordinarily wide range of views that have been expressed on this subject right across your Lordships' House, not once but on a number of occasions, I hope that even at this late hour the Government will stand back from their too certain assertions as to what the consequences will be and recognise that further independent advice would be entirely appropriate.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' contributions to this important debate. Noble Lords will know that we have debated at great length in Committee and on Report the value and importance of alternative business structures, noble Lords' concerns about how effectively they might operate and the safeguards that the Government have built into legislation to enable us to stop alternative business structures, to deny them any life without condition and to make sure that we do this in a cautious and step-by-step manner, as noble Lords would wish.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has brought back to your Lordships' House the question about access to justice. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for reading out parts of the new manifesto of the Ministry of Justice. I endorse wholeheartedly everything that he and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the importance of access to justice. I am concerned that in putting forward these propositions we must be mindful of dealing with new alternative business structures in a measured way. I am not, as noble Lords fear, seeking to do anything that takes away from our citizens the right of access to justice.
	The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, referred to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said. It is very important to make sure that local high-quality advice, perhaps from individual practitioners, is preserved. Noble Lords spoke at other stages of our consideration of this legislation about the need to make sure that the breadth of available advice and support was there. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, once again took us to his area of Wales, where his very real concern is that the rural population should not lose out in any way, shape or form.
	Therefore, there is nothing between us on this. I could not agree more. The question is how to achieve it. My difficulty—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not be surprised at this—is the danger of ranking different regulatory objectives, thereby changing the nature of what we set out from the beginning in our discussions on Clause 1; that is, making sure that the regulatory objectives are properly weighed up, properly dealt with and properly accommodated in any process.
	I have made it as clear as I possibly can that it would not fulfil the regulatory objectives if what we saw happen was a removal of good-quality advice services to local people. However, I said that it was important to make sure that in weighing up the objectives we look for high quality. I do not think that this is about low costs; it is about right costs and providing high-quality services that are more easily accessible to people in a modern age. As noble Lords are aware, that may mean providing services in different ways.
	There is nothing between us, but I cannot accept the amendment because, from our perspective, it does nothing other than rank the regulatory objectives in a way that does not work for us. I shall not go through them again because I have spoken about them at many other stages of your Lordships' deliberations. We believe that we have the right safeguards in place to ensure that we do not achieve what noble Lords are fearful of. The evil that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to is not what we are seeking to achieve.
	With alternative business structures, we are trying to provide opportunities for the legal profession and those who use its services to develop services in new, interesting and exciting ways, not to take away services from our citizens. It would be against everything that I believe in as a member of the new Labour Government if we wanted to do anything other than to provide the highest-quality services. That is very important to us.
	With Amendment No. 13, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, is trying to do something very important. It would require us to get as much information as possible about alternative business structures before setting off down this path. The trouble is that, unless we do so, we cannot get the information. It is rather a Catch-22 proposition within the noble Lord's amendment.
	I agree wholeheartedly that we need to be cautious and to do this in a measured way. Indeed, everything that we have suggested about the way we are setting it out, the safeguards, the way we would wish to license the professions and so on is designed to do precisely that. Sir David Clementi and the Joint Committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, all made these valid points about what we are seeking to do.
	We have spoken about examples in Australia. The German example is very interesting and I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was handed earlier a copy of the German Bill for the noble Lord. The trouble is that it is in German and I am not sure how useful it will be to either the noble Lord or me. The noble Lord's explanation of what is in the legislation is right. He will know about one of the interesting aspects of what is happening in Germany. In its latest report, the Monopolies Commission, which is a separate, independent advisory board set up under German competition law, dedicated a chapter to the regulation of the professional services in general. It considered four professions, of which legal services was one, and recommended wide-scale reform. It also proposed that non-lawyers be allowed to invest by becoming shareholders in law firms. I am not saying that that suggestion has been accepted by the German Government, but I understand that it will go to the Ministry of Economics, which will respond to it in whatever way it wishes. What is happening in Germany is an interesting development. There is an increasing look across legal services in different countries to see how best to provide them to give high-quality services and to protect the profession.
	We agreed on Report that it was important to monitor carefully what happened with alternative business structures and agreed an amendment based on what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recommended, both in Committee and in discussions with me outside the Committee, might be an appropriate thing to do. We agree that it is important to monitor carefully and to come back to Parliament with the result of that monitoring to demonstrate how well it is working.
	But we have all the information that there is to be had. As I have indicated, we have spoken with colleagues in other countries; we are watching what the Monopolies Commission is saying and the legislation in Germany; I have referred to Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner for the European Union, who is also very interested in what we are doing on legal services; and, as noble Lords know, I have spoken in Brussels about what we are seeking to do. There is a huge amount of interest.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, commented that we are doing this first. I agree. This is because that is what we do; we look at what needs to be developed and, following the great tradition of the way in which Britain has always operated, we think forward about what kind of services we provide. We may be in the lead now, but that is because other countries are beginning to contemplate and consider how best to do this.
	I take extremely seriously the notes of caution sounded in your Lordships' House. It is very important that we act in a measured way and do not destroy what is so important about the legal professions: competence, professionalism, independence, local service provision—many individuals provide high-quality services in their locality—and how the City legal firms and the Bar operate. It is not about destroying that; it is about providing new opportunities that will benefit the legal professions and consumers. As I said, we will do that in a measured way.
	I must reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, because we cannot provide more information, so we simply would not do anything, which is not what I wish to see happen. However, we will ensure that implementation is done in a measured way that enables both Houses of Parliament to see how well it is going. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She rejected our amendment on the basis that it would rank the objectives in Clause 1. In my submission, that is not so. All the amendment requires the licensor to do is make a proper investigation of the access to justice implications. Once that investigation is complete, it is then appropriate for the licensor to measure whatever conclusions he has preliminarily reached against all eight objectives, including access to justice, not giving special weight to any one. The obligation in our amendment is to investigate, not to distort the weighting system.
	Even if I am wrong about that, there are, as I said in my opening remarks, many examples of legislation and government guidance where weights are recorded by public authorities. There is no general principle, like equality under the law, that each ingredient fed into a final policy decision should have equal weight. On the contrary, the rule for Governments is discretion. For both those reasons, I am sad to have to tell the noble Baroness that I do not accept the Government's position.
	The noble Baroness talked about Part 5 leading the way in the international community; but it is clear that, in so far as Germany is part of the international community, the Government's approach has not resonated there. That comes out very clearly from Dr Dombek's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. The German Parliament rejected the equivalent of Part 5 in Germany because, as Dr Dombek said, it regarded it as,
	"a threat to the independence of the lawyer".
	We have not taken that position in our debate here; but I heard with great interest the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who, if he did not say so in terms, certainly implied that that would be one of the dangers of implementing Part 5 immediately, without looking at it very carefully beforehand.
	The noble Baroness is well aware that I do not accept the reasons why the Government oppose my amendment; therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 213; Not-Contents, 145.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 106 [Power to modify application of licensing rules etc to special bodies]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 11:
	Clause 106, page 58, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert "the following paragraphs of Schedule 11—"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 22, leave out "the following paragraphs of Schedule 11"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) section 83(5)(a) to (f);"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 24, after "1" insert "of Schedule 11"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 25, after "4(3)" insert "of that Schedule"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 26, after "6" insert "of that Schedule"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 27, after "20" insert "of that Schedule"
	Clause 106, page 58, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) If the licensing authority's licensing rules, as they apply in relation to a body to which an order under subsection (3)(a) relates, make provision requiring the body to have—
	(a) a Head of Legal Practice approved by the licensing authority, or (b) a Head of Finance and Administration approved by the licensing authority,they must also provide for a review by the licensing authority of any decision by it to refuse or withdraw that approval."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 207 [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Clause 207, page 116, line 21, leave out paragraph (c)
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 212 [Commencement]:

Lord Neill of Bladen: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Clause 212, page 120, line 5, at end insert "provided always that no order may be made by the Lord Chancellor bringing into force Part 5 of this Act and the related Schedules 10 to 14 until after—
	(a) consideration by both Houses of Parliament of a comprehensive report to be commissioned by the Lord Chancellor from an independent source analyzing—(i) the advantages or disadvantages (or both) which may be realistically expected to flow from the implementation of Part 5, including the benefits or risks (or both) to consumers;(ii) the potential enhancement or curtailment (or both) of access to justice; and(iii) the threats actual or internationally perceived to the independence of lawyers practising in England and Wales; and(b) the laying of the draft of a statutory instrument designed to bring into force the whole or part of Part 5 and the related Schedules before each House of Parliament and approval thereof by resolution of each House.
	(3) In this section an "independent source" means a source (such as a research organisation) which is independent of Government, free of connections with any political party and free of connections with any individual or body representing consumer interests or lawyers."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [The Legal Services Board]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Schedule 1, page 121, line 15, at end insert—
	"(4) An order made under sub-paragraph (3) is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the amendment is to paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which states:
	"The Lord Chancellor may by order amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the limit on the maximum number of persons for the time being specified in paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph a different limit".
	In Committee, I suggested that this was a quite extraordinary provision because it allowed the Secretary of State, now the Lord Chancellor, to expand or contract the size of the Legal Services Board and that the scope for manipulating the size of the board to produce the decisions that the Government wanted was, therefore, very wide. The Minister explained in response that no such cynical motive lay behind the Government's provision but that on the contrary the reason why it was important that the Lord Chancellor had this power was if, for example, the Legal Services Board took on two or three new areas of regulation that required expertise on the board that was not present. She went on to say:
	"The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raises is that the Lord Chancellor may be able to sneak something under the wire by negative procedure. One way in which to address his concerns would be for me to take the matter away to allow us to make it an affirmative rather than negative resolution. That would mean that, if the numbers were to be expanded, it would have to come through a debate in this Chamber and another place, so nothing could be done that would suggest that the Secretary of State was trying to increase the numbers for other reasons".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. 163.]
	At Report, not only did we not find an amendment to that effect tabled by the Government but the Minister gave us a number of reasons why an affirmative resolution was not the correct approach. Of those reasons, two were predominant. We were told, first, that an affirmative resolution would take up too much parliamentary time and, secondly, that it was decreasingly the Government's habit to take this approach.
	As the Minister is aware, I took issue with both those suggestions. On the first point, the amount of parliamentary time devoted to affirmative resolutions in your Lordships' House is not very demanding. Secondly, far from the practice of delegated measures of this nature falling out of fashion, Governments—and I do not exclude the previous Conservative Government from this criticism—have increasingly relied on the skeleton Bill as an instrument of legislation. So I was not only unconvinced by the Minister's reasons but in any case felt that they were wholly beside the point.
	Here we are faced with exactly the situation that we were faced with onthe first amendment tabled this afternoon. The Government had given a commitment to your Lordships' House and, in my submission, they should respect the convention and put the undertaking about an affirmative resolution in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, but again, accepting all the reasons that he has given, for another reason. It is absolutely crucial that the standing of the legal profession should be independent of government and seen to be independent of government. That is strictly related to the merits of this amendment. I do not want to take up the time of the House because surely it is obvious that here we are concerned with a matter of public interest. The service's exports are worth more than £2 billion a year. The amendment is relevant to quality and the standing of the profession. It would act as a safeguard. Anyone can say, "Oh, it is nothing to do with a Minister of State. This is a matter for Parliament".

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we support the principle of this amendment. An important issue of principle is involved of the noble Baroness giving an undertaking, because people act on undertakings that are given from the government Front Bench. It does not help to be told at a later stage, "I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues who are controlling the Bill elsewhere and I am sorry but I cannot carry this through". Decisions are taken on the basis of undertakings.
	Having said that, one of the refreshing aspects of the noble Baroness is that she is prepared to speak out to help the House come to conclusions and to resolve difficulties that the opposition parties have with government legislation. I do not want to discourage her from giving undertakings but I regard her as the agent for the Government whose word should not be distorted in any way by subsequent discussions.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this procedure merits an affirmative resolution. It would give the House the opportunity to hear the arguments and to look at the whole issue in the round. Such a debate would be very valuable and would not be a waste of time.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone in which noble Lords have brought back this amendment. I said that I would take it away. In Committee, I said that it would be a way of giving more confidence to your Lordships' House. My difficulty is that I was unable to pursue the matter for two reasons. One is that it is my responsibility to look carefully at what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says. I hope noble Lords will agree that my record is completely exemplary in always doing what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee tells me to do on every Bill that I have ever taken through the House—and I have clocked up quite a few by now.
	When I discussed this matter with my noble and learned friend, he was concerned that we should pursue what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee tells us to do. When it suggests that the Government change their mind, we always take that on board. However, the Government are not being asked to change their mind. This powerful committee of your Lordships' House—I am grateful to see the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in his place—does not require us to do that. Therefore, we believe that the Government should not necessarily move.
	Having said that, I then talked to officials about whether—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee does not have powers from this House delegated to it to decide these matters; these are for this House to decide.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was not trying to suggest that for a second. I take that committee's reports extremely seriously. If the committee recommends to your Lordships' House that the Government should change a procedure from negative to affirmative, or whatever, the Government have always responded positively to those recommendations, certainly as regards any legislation that I have ever taken through the House. That is what I was trying to say. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee submits its reports to the House but it is for the House to decide the relevant matter. This afternoon noble Lords may decide to change what the committee has suggested and to vote on this amendment, if they wish. However, I was making the point that the Government always listen carefully to the committee and take its views very seriously. Certainly that is my view as a Minister responsible for a number of Bills on which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has commented.
	I am not in a position to change from the negative to the affirmative procedure. That is not because we are suggesting to your Lordships that the amendment is not important. I stand by what I said that there is no question but that the purpose of this provision is to enable the board to be reviewed and, if need be, made bigger or smaller in the light of its responsibilities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about skeleton Bills and I know that there is concern in your Lordships' House that all Governments have a tendency to introduce skeleton Bills. However, the number of amendments to the Solicitors Act that we have dealt with during the passage of this Bill is a good example of why the use of secondary legislation can be positive, because it enables us to respond to the needs of the time. I would commend having the right level of primary legislation and the ability to amend it to reflect circumstances—of which this Bill is a good example—because there will be changes.
	We have allowed changes to the structure of the Legal Services Board to allow other aspects of legal services to come in at a later stage—although I accept that noble Lords would have liked some of those changes to have been introduced earlier. While it may be necessary to put expertise on the board, equally it is possible for the board to get smaller.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that negative resolutions go through the House on the nod and that here is no real effort by this House to investigate them?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not accept that, because my recollection of debates on secondary legislation is that from time to time your Lordships decide that there are issues of great concern to this House and call the Government to account, whether by affirmative or negative procedure. I have laid a number of orders that have used both procedures. It is not the case that an order cannot be debated if it is laid under the negative procedure—far from it.
	That is our position. Noble Lords must decide what they wish to do and I leave the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as to the substance of the amendment, the power that the Government have given themselves in the schedule is extremely wide and uncontrolled. The Lord Chancellor is given the power to expand or contract the size of the Legal Services Board. This is another part of the Bill that goes to the heart of the independence of the board.
	It is now stated in the Bill that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must have the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice on the appointment and dismissal of the chairman and members of the board. We have not sought that kind of guarantee in relation to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 because we felt that the reasons given by the noble Baroness for the retention of that power and the commitment toan affirmative resolution were enough. Without the affirmative resolution, the Government are given dangerously uncontrolled power.
	However, the core issue is the one to which I referred in Amendment No. 1. The statement was made on the face of the Bill. As a consequence, noble Lords on both the official Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches did not table amendments to this part of the Bill which they otherwise would have tabled.
	Although I shall not press this amendment to a vote, I say again to the noble Baroness: just think of the convention on undertakings given by Ministers on the Floor of the House. When the Bill reaches another place, I suggest that the correct thing to do would be for the Government to put the requirement for an affirmative resolution in the Bill. Constitutionally, that is the only proper way to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 [Exempt persons]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Schedule 3, page 132, line 4, leave out from "any" to end of line 5 and insert "condition subject to which its recognition under that section had effect, or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Authorised persons]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
	Schedule 5, page 149, line 31, leave out from "any" to end of line 33 and insert "condition subject to which its recognition has effect, and"
	Schedule 5, page 152, line 34, at end insert—
	"17A (1) During the transitional period, a person ("P") is an exempt person in relation to the carrying on of an activity ("the relevant activity") which is a reserved legal activity within sub-paragraph (2), if—
	(a) P carries on the relevant activity by virtue of an employee of P ("E") carrying it on in E's capacity as such an employee, and(b) E is an authorised member of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (within the meaning of paragraph 17(2) of this Schedule).
	(2) The reserved legal activities mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) are—
	(a) the exercise of a right of audience;(b) the conduct of litigation;(c) the administration of oaths.
	(3) If P is a body, in this paragraph references to an employee of P include references to a manager of P."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Ownership of licensed bodies]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
	Schedule 13, page 195, line 17, leave out "or partner"
	Schedule 13, page 195, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) a partner of A (except, where S or V is a partnership in which A is a partner, another partner in S or V),"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [The Law Society, solicitors, recognised bodies and foreign lawyers]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
	Schedule 16, page 244, line 35, leave out paragraph 40 and insert—
	"40 For section 44B (examination of files) substitute—
	"44B Provision of information and documents by solicitors etc
	(1) The Society may by notice require a person to whom this section applies—
	(a) to provide information, or information of a description, specified in the notice, or(b) produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice.
	(2) This section applies to—
	(a) a solicitor;(b) an employee of a solicitor;(c) a recognised body;(d) an employee or manager of, or a person with an interest in shares in, a recognised body.
	(3) The Society may give a notice under this section only if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating—
	(a) whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor;(b) whether a solicitor has failed to comply with any requirements imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Society;(c) whether a recognised body, or any of its managers or employees has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 or any rules made by the Society and applicable to the body, manager or employee by virtue of section 9 of that Act;(d) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) with respect to a person who is or was involved in a legal practice (within the meaning of section 43(1A)).
	(4) A notice under this section—
	(a) may specify the time and place at which, and manner and form in which, the information is to be provided or document is to be produced;(b) must specify the period within which the information is to be provided or the document produced;(c) may require the information to be provided or document to be produced to the Society or to a person specified in the notice.
	(5) The Society may pay to any person such reasonable costs as may be incurred by that person in connection with the provision of any information, or production of any document, by that person pursuant to a notice under this section.
	(6) Paragraphs 9(3) and (4) and 13, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 apply in relation to the powers to obtain information conferred by this section, but for this purpose paragraph 9 of that Schedule has effect as if—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (3) for "such documents" there were substituted "information to which a notice given to him under section 44B applies",(b) in that sub-paragraph for "sub-paragraph (1)" there were substituted "the notice", and(c) in sub-paragraph (4) for "produce" (in the first place) to the end there were substituted "provide information pursuant to a notice under section 44B to provide the information to any person appointed by the Society at such time and place as may be specified in the order."
	(7) Paragraphs 9 (other than sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)), 12, 13, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 apply in relation to the powers to obtain documents conferred by this section as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule, except that for this purpose—
	(a) any reference in paragraph 9 of that Schedule to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph is to be construed as a reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement to produce documents, under this section,(b) any reference in that paragraph to any such documents as are mentioned in paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule is to be construed as a reference to any documents to which a notice under this section applies,(c) the reference to the solicitor or his firm in paragraph 9(5) of that Schedule, and the reference to the solicitor or personal representative in paragraph 9(7) of that Schedule, are to be construed as references to the person to whom the notice was given under this section, and(d) the reference in paragraph 9(12) of that Schedule to the Society is to be construed as including a reference to a person specified under subsection (4)(c).
	(8) In this section—
	"manager" has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 208 of that Act);
	"recognised body" means a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985;
	and the reference to a person who has an interest in shares in a recognised body is to be construed in accordance with sections 72 and 109 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
	44BA Power to require explanation of document or information
	(1) The Society may, by notice, require a person to whom a notice is given under section 44B (or a representative of the person) to attend at a time and place specified in the notice to provide an explanation of any information provided or document produced pursuant to the notice.
	(2) The Society may pay to any person such reasonable costs as may be incurred by that person in connection with that person's compliance with a requirement imposed under subsection (1).
	(3) Paragraphs 9(3) and (4) and 13, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 apply in relation to a notice under this section, except that for this purpose paragraph 9 of that Schedule has effect as if—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (3) for "having" to "sub-paragraph (1)" there were substituted "refuses, neglects or otherwise fails to comply with a requirement under section 44BA(1)", and(b) in sub-paragraph (4) for "produce" (in the first place) to the end there were substituted "provide an explanation of any information provided or document produced pursuant to a notice under section 44B (or a representative of such a person) to attend at a time and place specified in the order to provide an explanation of any information so provided or document so produced."
	44BB Provision of information and documents by other persons
	(1) The High Court, on the application of the Society, may order a person to whom section 44B does not apply—
	(a) to provide information, or information of a description, specified in the notice, or(b) to produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice.
	(2) The High Court may make an order under this section only if it is satisfied—
	(a) that it is likely that the information or document is in the possession or custody of, or under the control of, the person, and(b) that there is reasonable cause to believe that the information or document is likely to be of material significance to an investigation into any of the matters mentioned in section 44B(3)(a) to (d).
	(3) An order under this section may direct the Society to pay to a person specified in the order such reasonable costs as may be incurred by that person in connection with the provision of any information, or production of any document, by that person pursuant to the order.
	(4) Section 44B(4) applies in relation to an order under this section as it applies in relation to a notice under section 44B.
	(5) Paragraphs 9(5A) and (7) to (12), 12, 13, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 apply in relation to an order under this section as they apply in relation to an order under paragraph 9(4) of that Schedule, except that for this purpose—
	(a) the reference to the solicitor or personal representative in paragraph 9(7) of that Schedule is to be construed as a reference to the person in respect of whom the order under this section is made, and(b) the reference in paragraph 9(12) of that Schedule to the Society is to be read as including a reference to a person specified under section 44B(4)(c) (as applied by subsection (4) of this section).
	44BC Information offences
	(1) It is an offence for a person who knows or suspects an investigation into any of the matters mentioned in section 44B(3)(a) to (d) is being or is likely to be conducted—
	(a) to falsify, conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of a document which the person knows or suspects is or would be relevant to the investigation, or(b) to cause or permit the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of such a document.
	(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it is a defence for the accused to show that the accused had no intention of concealing facts disclosed by the documents from the person conducting the investigation.
	(3) It is an offence for a person, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed on the person under section 44B, 44BA or 44BB—
	(a) to provide information which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or(b) recklessly to provide information which is false or misleading in a material particular.
	(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for term not exceeding 2 years or a fine, or both.
	(5) In relation to an offence under subsection (1) or (3) committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the reference in subsection (4)(a) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.""
	Schedule 16, page 256, line 6, leave out "the Compensation Fund" and insert "compensation funds (within the meaning of section 36A)"
	Schedule 16, page 268, line 41, leave out paragraph 96 and insert—
	"96 For paragraph 14 (examination of files) substitute—
	Information about suitability for recognition
	14 (1) The Society may give a notice under this paragraph if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating whether a recognised body continues to be suitable to be recognised under section 9.
	(2) A notice under this paragraph is a notice which requires a person within sub-paragraph (3)—
	(a) to provide information, or information of a description, specified in the notice, or(b) to produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice.
	(3) The persons are—
	(a) the recognised body;(b) an employee or manager of the recognised body;(c) a person who has an interest in shares in the recognised body (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 72 and 109 of that Act)).
	(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, section 44B(4) to (7) of the 1974 Act applies—
	(a) in relation to a notice under this paragraph as if it were a notice under section 44B of that Act, and(b) in relation to a person given a notice under this paragraph as if that person were a person given a notice under that section,and references in subsections (6) and (7) of that section to powers conferred by that section are to be read as references to powers conferred by this paragraph.
	(5) Section 44BA of the 1974 Act (power to require explanation of document or information) applies in relation to a notice under this paragraph and the person to whom such a notice is given as it applies in relation to a notice under section 44B of the 1974 Act and the person to whom such a notice is given.
	(6) Subsection (1) of section 44BC of that Act (falsification of documents etc) applies in relation to an investigation of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) as it applies in relation to the investigations mentioned in that subsection, and subsections (2), (4) and (5) of that section apply accordingly.
	(7) Subsection (3) of that section (provision of false information etc) applies in relation to a requirement imposed under this paragraph as it applies in relation to a requirement imposed by section 44B of that Act, and subsections (4) and (5) of that section apply accordingly.""
	Schedule 16, page 271, line 17, after second "(c)" insert "or (d)"
	Schedule 16, page 278, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) after sub-paragraph (3)(b) insert—"(ba) the Society has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the registered foreign lawyer ("L") in connection with—(i) the business of any person of whom L is or was an employee, or of any body of which L is or was a manager, or(ii) any business which is or was carried on by L as a sole trader;","
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 22 [Transitional provision]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
	Schedule 22, page 354, line 43, at end insert—
	" (1) During the transitional period, section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 (provision of information and documents by solicitors etc) has effect as if the list of persons in subsection (2) of that section included a legal partnership (within the meaning of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5).
	(2) For this purpose "the transitional period" means the period which—
	(a) begins with the day on which section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as substituted by Schedule 16) comes into force, and(b) ends with the day appointed for the coming into force of section 13."
	Schedule 22, page 355, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) a person who, by virtue of paragraph 13 of Schedule 5, is an exempt person in relation to the carrying on of an activity which is a notarial activity,"
	Schedule 22, page 355, line 46, at end insert—
	"( ) a person who, by virtue of paragraph 17A of Schedule 5, is an exempt person in relation to the carrying on of an activity which is a reserved legal activity within sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 23 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:
	Schedule 23, page 358, column 2 leave out line 33
	Schedule 23, page 360, line 31, column 2 at beginning insert—
	
		
			  "Section 2." 
		
	
	Schedule 23, page 363, line 23, column 2 after "paragraphs" insert "2,"
	Schedule 23, page 365, line 32, column 2 at end insert "to 12"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Disclosure of information]:

Lord Howard of Rising: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) A local authority may, at the request of a relevant person, supply a relevant person with dwelling information for use (by the person to whom it is supplied or another relevant person) in connection with switchover help functions."

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for ensuring that we did not convene for Report until the Digital Switchover Help Scheme had been published. It has been most helpful to have sight of the scheme.
	Amendment No. 1 was tabled in Grand Committee and taken away in order to give the Minister further time to reflect on the problem of ensuring that the digital switchover help scheme is available to those who live in multiple dwellings—blocks of flats, old people's homes and so on. Paragraph 4 of the scheme gives the administrator considerable flexibility in the treatment of multiple dwellings—rightly so, in my view. After all, the appropriate method of dealing with one eligible person in a block of 100 flats may be quite different from the way that one would deal with an old people's home with eight residents, all of whom were eligible for assistance.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate a little on how he sees the administrator using his powers. For example, in view of the difficulties that may be encountered with a set-top aerial of the type described in sub-paragraphs 2(6) and (7) of Schedule 3 of the scheme, can the Minister inform the House of the types of assistance that an administrator would be able to provide via a notification under paragraph (2)(b) of Clause 17 of the scheme? As already suggested, it would be of great assistance to the House to have an indication of how far the administrator would be able to go in order to help this category of eligible person. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment and for referring to the fact that we have delayed this Report stage until publication of, and agreement over, the scheme. I am sure that that will assist the House in considering the Bill.
	Of course, the noble Lord has already had one attempt at this amendment. He raised it in Grand Committee as a probing amendment to elicit what help would be given to people who accessed television through a communal TV system. During that debate, he referred to the fact that the Bill makes no provision for people in flats or other types of dwelling that may be affected by a failure to upgrade communal TV systems. It will be recognised that the Bill deals entirely with access to DWP and other data necessary for the smooth and efficient administration of the digital switchover help scheme. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no mention of the issue that the noble Lord raises.
	The noble Lord raised several points, to which I should like to respond. I should like to set out in more detail the challenges of ensuring that communal TV systems are upgraded and the implications of no action being taken. Communal TV aerial systems have been with us since the 1960s and were originally installed to overcome difficulties with individual reception; for example, where a dwelling had no access to the roof for an outside aerial or a poor line of sight to the transmitter.
	There is no statutory requirement for landlords to provide access to communal TV systems. There may well be obligations under a lease, tenancy agreement or contract for the upkeep of the system. But, like other communal services, such as lifts, roofs, and so on, the costs of maintenance will normally be covered by rent and service charges, so will be allowable for housing benefit. Changes to housing benefit regulations from 1 April clarified the position, making it clear that housing benefit covers all types of communal TV system upgrades where system costs can be separated from subscription charges.
	We estimate that as many as 4 million homes may have access to a communal TV system—the majority of properties served, of course, are flats. Communal TV systems are mainly found in medium and large-scale blocks of purpose-built flats. It will be no surprise to the House that almost half of London's households are flats, maisonettes or apartments. Of these, a third comprises purpose-built flats and 14 per cent are part of a converted or shared house. Of the 20 districts with the highest proportion of flats, maisonettes or apartments, 18 are in London. Around 40 per cent of private sector flats, excluding leasehold properties, are also in London.
	The majority of communal systems in the UK were originally installed to work with analogue and were designed to carry only four or five televisions. They will need some attention if they are to convey the full range of digital services after switchover. In March 2006, the Digital Television Group—the industry standards body for digital TV—carried out work for the DTI to look in detail at the types of problems that uninspected systems might encounter. The report by the group found that the main problem was likely to be the poor performance of many analogue systems in handling digital signals, with insufficient signal passed through the system to ensure a reliable service.
	The Digital Television Group report found that at switchover, some existing systems may provide access to limited digital services while others may perform adequately because of the increase in power levels and within the aerial group transmissions. But the age and condition of existing systems is an important factor in determining how well uninspected systems perform post-switchover. It is important to bear in mind that industry guidance recommends that system components are replaced every 10 years.
	The Government's approach since 2005 has been to ensure that there is a strong and effective evidence base and to ensure that all landlords—both social and private sector landlords—and residents are aware of the issue and take action to upgrade communal TV systems where appropriate. In January 2007, my department published research carried out by the British Market Research Bureau into actions taken by social landlords, local authorities, ALMOs and housing associations. The research found that 32 per cent of social landlords were in the process of completing the upgrade of all affected properties, although a further 18 per cent had made a significant start and were well on their way to completing by switchover. Around half reported little progress.
	If we look at national trends in individual households, more than 77 per cent of households have converted at least one TV set to digital, and take-up is still growing strongly. Recent data from the Digital UK/Ofcom tracker survey, which interviews around 2,000 households each quarter, show that take-up of digital TV for people living in flats is more or less in line with the general population at around 75 per cent. There are a number of factors involved, but the differences between the two surveys are most likely to be due to an increasing number of residents making their own arrangements for receiving digital TV—for example by satellite—or residents using communal TV systems that have not been checked and which convey some digital services.
	Of course, we recognise that we need to ensure that more work needs to be done to establish the full picture, but it appears that the apparent slowness of landlords to take active steps is not constraining digital television take-up. That is why we think that progress is being made, but the noble Lord was right to identify that anxiety. However, it is clear that, first, people want to avail themselves of the advantages that digital brings; and, secondly, that through the information flows which are circulating around the country people are becoming increasingly aware that digital is the system of the future and that analogue will be switched off. They are therefore making arrangements accordingly.
	The help scheme will not cover communal TV systems. That must be the landlord's responsibility—that is where the obligation lies. However, the scheme will take all reasonable steps to ensure a continuity of reception at switchover and will try to connect to a communal system. At switchover, the power of transmission will be increased. This should give the many flat dwellers an ability to receive digital services on indoor aerials, even if the landlord has not adopted their system. We have evidence of the extent to which the nation is already well aware of the need to switch to digital.
	The noble Lord has identified an issue relating to communal provision. That is the responsibility of the landlord, but we are optimistic on two counts: that landlords will see it in their interest to provide these services to their tenants; and, secondly, that the strength of the signal may mean that in any case the flat dweller is not dependent on what the landlord provides. I hope that that explanation has reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I must apologise for not declaring an interest in that I am chairman of the trustees of the Hospital of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Castle Rising, which is a residence for people who would be able to apply for help. I thank the Minister for telling us about the extra power that will make the set-top aerials work where they might not in other circumstances. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Astor: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) A report shall be laid before Parliament detailing the likely expenditure which the Secretary of State has calculated will be incurred by—
	(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Northern Ireland Department, and (c) local authorities,in supplying information under this Act."

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the scheme agreement between the DCMS and the BBC. It is extremely helpful and will enable us to have a more useful debate today. My amendment attempts to improve the parliamentary scrutiny that will be necessary in the process.
	The Bill allows the Government to make the BBC an arm of the Department of Social Security because it gives the BBC an additional £600 million in licence fee, which the BBC will give to those who need help during the switchover. Such schemes would normally be run by the department and not by the BBC. While the BBC has schemes which help those who are receiving a pension, it has never before gone into areas relating to this scheme. It neither has the resources to do so, nor does it have the competence to do it. That is not its own fault—it has never had to do this before. As a result, the BBC will sub-contract the whole operation to a company to be owned 51 per cent by the BBC and 49 per cent by a mystery bidder who will be responsible for processing and handing out the money.
	In normal circumstances, if the Government intended to spend £600 million, there would be parliamentary scrutiny, first, of the rules of eligibility; secondly, of the management of the scheme; and, thirdly, scrutiny of whether it has succeeded. However, Parliament has no chance to debate these rules. The Government have published them, and the Minister was kind enough to put Report off until the agreement was published, but nowhere during this process can we debate them. If there is no amendment to the Bill, the other place will have no chance to debate whether the rules are fair or the criteria, the cost, the implementation or anything else. This is the only chance we have to raise this. That is wrong; there should be scrutiny to see whether the Government have the rules right. My amendment does that.
	To reinforce my point, I draw the Minister's attention to the scheme agreement. On page 6, Clause 8(1)(b)(i) states:
	"at the relevant time he is entitled to disability living allowance, attendance allowance, constant attendance allowance, or mobility supplement".
	We all know—especially those of us who spent some time in the Department of Social Security—that rules and benefits change. They may change before this comes into place—maybe even during it—and, therefore, the scheme agreement will probably have to be amended.
	While that is not certain, if one moves on to page 21 of the scheme agreement, it states:
	"The provisions of this Scheme are conditional on no decision or judgement being made by a competent body in relation to any provision of the EC Treaty or legislation based upon the EC Treaty ("EC law") in respect of the Scheme which has the direct or indirect effect of preventing or obstructing the operation or funding of the Scheme".
	I think that, in simple language, that means the department has not got a clue whether this scheme is legal under EU law. We have seen that in some of the Government's other attempts; for example, privatising the Tote. They put forward a very good scheme, that would have benefited racing, but it was immediately thrown out by Brussels and the whole thing is in total disarray. Quite clearly, the department does not know whether this scheme is legal, and it has not been tested properly in Brussels. The scheme agreement goes on to describe that it would not be a breach and how the Secretary of State can change it.
	Page 27 states that the BBC Trust will;
	"ensure that the Scheme is operated in a way that will provide value for money for licence fee payers and will invite the NAO to review the operation of the Scheme at least biennially".
	That is every two years, which seems to be not quite enough, although we may discuss that in greater detail on a forthcoming amendment.
	Finally, page 26 states that,
	"the Secretary of State may amend the Scheme in such a way she considers necessary to ensure that the Scheme complies with competition law and the law governing State Aids, but only after complying with the provisions of this paragraph".
	It then, in effect, goes on to provide that if there is any change in the law, whether EU law or the law of this country, this scheme can be changed. Therefore, at any moment, the Government can come along and say to the BBC, "We've changed our minds. It's costing too much". We know that the Government have a complication about that, because, when we asked how they arrived at the figure of £600 million, the Minister was kind enough to write to me and say:
	"We cannot give more details on the breakdown of costs at this stage ... as this could affect future discussions with potential bidders and the ability of the contracting authority to secure value for money".
	That is a nice argument, usually used by government departments when they are unsure of their figures.
	At any moment, the Government can come along and say, "We've got the costs wrong". Although the Treasury has agreed that should the BBC spend more than £600 million, it will make an additional payment, we know that, at the end of the day, the Government will change the scheme. The amount of money could be £600 million or £800 million; we do not know. There is no opportunity for Parliament to debate, amend or have any part in this. There is no oversight or control. It is up to an agreement that the Secretary of State can, in effect, impose upon the BBC Trust, which will be responsible for running this scheme. That is wrong; there should be accountability. I thought this Government believed in accountability. My amendment would ensure that during the operation the Secretary of State must come to Parliament and explain what she is doing and how she is accountable for what we now know is taxpayers' money because the licence fee is now a tax. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, makes some extremely important points. He has provoked me into speaking earlier than I otherwise would have done about page 26, paragraphs 4(1) and (2). This is a great let-out for the Secretary of State and could lead to considerable changes to the scheme. It is very important that the Minister today explains these circumstances, which, as the noble Viscount says, simply imply that the department does not have a clue what the competition situation is and that there has not been any pre-clearance with the Commission.
	What other circumstances do the Government envisage? Are these the only set of circumstances in which the Government envisage changing the scheme, or are there others? That is very important. I am less concerned about the precise cost, but I am very concerned about the accountability points that the noble Viscount has made. I am concerned above all to know, if we are holding in our hands what purports to be the digital switchover help scheme that will be effected, in what circumstances it can or will be changed. What is envisaged might happen?

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. For the reasons outlined by my noble friend, it would be entirely appropriate to include the provision in the Bill.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for identifying these issues, which are usefully aired by the amendment. He has taken full advantage ofthe publication of the scheme, but I am not sure that this amendment is adroit enough to meet his requirements. I listened fairly carefully to what has been said; I have also looked at the amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the likely costs attributable to the DWP and other public providers of information under the Bill. That seems to be a recipe for additional and unnecessary bureaucracy.
	The DWP is not required to provide a report for data-sharing gateways other than in relation to the disclosure of information. Therefore, I am not sure why it should be required to do so with regard to this information, unless the noble Viscount is indicating that he would like the amendment drafted slightly differently so that it identifies the BBC as the point at issue.
	Clause 41 of the BBC agreement requires the BBC Trust to report to the Secretary of State annually on what the BBC has done in complying with its various obligations under the help scheme. The help scheme agreement makes it clear that that report must contain information about the operation of the scheme, including in particular information about the performance indicators mentioned and the performance of the administrators.
	I recognise that the BBC Trust's report covers only the BBC's activities and not the DWP's, but we can certainly refute any suggestion that the BBC is not answerable to this position. Therefore, the amendment throws the whole weight on the DWP as needing to be more in the open. I persist in my point that we do not ask the DWP to produce similar reports for other data-sharing gateways, and I am not sure that the case has been made for this one.
	We certainly intend that the costs will be treated as scheme costs and borne by the administrator, rather than the DWP. They will fall within the budget set for the scheme and the reports produced by the trust. As noble Lords have said, details of the arrangements have still to be agreed. We have not completed that.
	In Committee, I was pressed to delay Report until we had published the help scheme, which we have, so the broad contours within which we are working are quite clear. Not every 'i' has been dotted nor 't' been crossed about administration, but our current work suggests that costs associated with information sharing for the help scheme will be modest. We do not expect them to be more than £10 million for the lifetime of the scheme. That is because the data will be drawn from existing DWP infrastructure, which does not require much adaptation to facilitate the physical sharing of data for the help scheme.
	I freely acknowledge that I do not have full documentation on operational details, but I can respond to the amendment by indicating that the DWP is not involved in significant costs for the scheme. Secondly, the DWP is not asked for that information in any other context; I am not sure why it should be here. I emphasise that the BBC will, in its annual report to Parliament, have to give full details of how the scheme is being operated.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, laid the rather formidable charge that we do not know what on Earth we are doing about the European Commission's attitude to the Bill. Let me allay the noble Viscount's anxieties by saying that we have done some work in that area. We think that the scheme will probably be defined as a state aid and will therefore need to be notified to the Commission, but we regard it as certain to be judged as compatible with the common market under provisions of the treaty of Rome dealing with assistance of a social character. That is what the scheme is about.
	Platform neutrality is of particular importance in successfully bringing an aid within that exemption. We do not anticipate that causing a delay to implementation. There is a later amendment from the noble Viscount about platform neutrality, to which I hope I shall be able to respond positively, but I trail at this stage the fact that, because of those two considerations, we think that we will be totally compatible with Brussels rules on these matters.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Parliament has not been able either to debate or to scrutinise the rules that are drawn up in the agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC on what the eligibility provisions should be for those receiving help? Does he not think that those rules, which cover how the £600 million will be spent, should be debated by Parliament? If my amendment is not the right way to do that, will he say what the right way is to allow Parliament to debate the matter?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we think that we are fully accountable to Parliament for the Bill and our intentions behind the scheme. After all, we had a pretty substantial debate on the BBC charter and the scheme. I understand what the noble Viscount says about details, but it will be recognised that the broad structure of the scheme is well in line with the consensus of Parliament on what help there should be for those for whom it is intended. If the noble Viscount will forgive me, I must address my remarks to his amendment and to his extremely interesting questions, rather than to him, but on his very signal point about the European Community I assure him that we are confident of our position.
	The noble Viscount asked me earlier whether the Secretary of State can arbitrarily change the scheme, but I did not have time to reply before he asked me another searching question. Under Schedule 2(4), the Secretary of State has a right to change the scheme, albeit in very limited circumstances; namely, where the scheme is operated in a way that is incompatible with EU law. Any other changes would need to be made by agreement. We would certainly need to make the scheme compatible with European law. That is regular. We do not think that we will have to make any changes at all, except on the extreme margins, because the scheme's broad concept falls within the criteria laid down by Brussels. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount, although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is quite irrepressible, even on Report.

Lord Clement-Jones: I am afraid so, my Lords. Before the Minister sits down for the second time, may I press him on the point about changes to the scheme? Is he saying that the only changes that can be made under the agreement are in Schedule 2(4), and that, otherwise, the BBC must agree those changes with the Government?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed my views and what I intended to say more cogently and with greater emphasis. I am extremely grateful to him.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. As always, he has tried to be as helpful as possible. He is quite right that my drafting of my amendment is not of the highest standard and perhaps does not mean exactly what I want it to say, but he was able to respond to the intention behind it. I hope that, between now and Third Reading, I might write to the Minister or be able to have a meeting with him to discuss the amendment, because I am anxious to return with an amendment that explains exactly what I attempted to explain in my speech to it. I recognise that my amendment as it is might not do the job perfectly.
	The Minister made a couple of points. In response to my point about the European Court and Brussels, he said probably. We have heard that several times about EC judgments, and we wish the Minister the best of luck. His department has not always had luck when it comes to probabilities in Brussels; it has certainly not had it with the Tote. His other point was that this involves the consensus of Parliament. That is certainly true. Social security legislation is the result of the consensus of Parliament, but the rules that define who gets the money are made by orders in this House and another place. They are debated and subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, indeed, amendment. That is the difference, and that is what we do not have here.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, my noble friend could add to that. I speak from experience. Who does and who does not benefit, and the exclusions and the inclusions, are some of the most fiercely debated issues.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Indeed, we had those debates when he represented that department in another place and I represented that department in this House. Some of my more painful experiences were when I was debating some of the issues on the terms of eligibility.
	In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Minister said that any other change has to be done by agreement with the BBC. That is not very difficult for the Secretary of State to do because we know that the BBC has to look to him for its funding and so on. The Secretary of State can go along to the BBC at any time and say, "Listen, I think we need to change the rules here. Do you agree?". The poor old BBC has to agree because it will not have any choice. That is the problem.
	We support the intentions behind this, but, in effect, it will allow the spending of a substantial sum of money, which in any other government department would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, without that scrutiny. I am grateful for the Minister's response. He nodded when I said that I could either write to him or go to see him to determine whether I could come forward with a better amendment, which I will do. In the mean time, I thank him for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (a)

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to the Minister for making sure that we are debating the Bill on Report with the scheme in our hands. Of course, it has considerable drawbacks for the Minister who can be interrogated on the detail of the scheme during the debate. I am sure that there are downsides from his point of view, but it is extremely helpful for noble Lords to make sure that there is a satisfactory scheme and that we understand what its impact will be.
	This amendment, which I put down in Grand Committee, is a marker designed to show that we still do not believe that the Government have made the case for BBC licence fee payers paying for digital switchover. Why they should pay £600 million from the licence fee, and not the general taxpayer, still eludes us. I rather took that impression from what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had to say as well. The way in which the scheme is constructed makes it clear that the BBC, effectively, is unnecessary, except for paying the bill. Nearly everything in terms of the project can be done by the contractor. In fact, the BBC's press release seems to make a big distinction between policy and project. I shall be asking the Minister more about that in a moment.
	All that the BBC seems to be there for is to pay money to the contractor. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that the BBC had to do this because broadcasting technology had changed. Moreover, he said:
	"The help scheme will ... be most effective if it is fully integrated with the wider programme of work, which is best done by linking it with the wider responsibilities of the BBC for building digital Britain set out in the new BBC charter and agreement".—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 252.]
	That is rather circular: it is more or less saying that it is because the Government have decided that that is what should be done. I do not think that there was any real, rational argument behind that.
	It was interesting to hear what the Minister had to say about the rationale for the scheme given to the EU. We have always argued that this is a social assistance programme and that it is appropriate for the Government to pay for it, not the BBC. What argument is being made to the EU in order to get this through the competition authorities? It is "assistance of a social character"—I took down the Minister's words. I believe that the logic is flawed. I do not believe that I will be able to persuade the Government, especially not with an agreement between the BBC and the DCMS in my hand. It would be only realistic to accept that, but I want the Minister to know that in my view the arguments have not been made correctly.
	It would be useful for the Minister to explain why there is this distinction between the policy review group and the project board. Certainly to the outside, uninitiated observer, that is not at all clear. So there is that confusion and, even more peculiar, in the light of that confusion the BBC Trust is set up in this agreement as the adjudicator to decide what functions properly fall on the board side or on the policy side. Again, that is a very peculiar way of doing things. Why is there not an integrated way of doing it? If the BBC is genuinely part of this operation and not simply a pass through to the contractor, why are not the board and the policy review group combined? I think we would all like to know a great deal more about that side of things from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are used on Report to reiterating quite fundamental amendments and debates that we have had in Committee, but I am not used on Report to having to reiterate discussions and fundamental debates that we have had on a series of other occasions when these matters have been before Parliament. To hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, anyone would think that until this Bill appeared on the scene no one had ever considered whether digital switchover and a help scheme had got much to do with the BBC. It was as if we had not had the best part of several years debating the renewal of the BBC charter and this dimension being an important part of it. Not surprisingly for a far-sighted Government, it would have been quite extraordinary if digital switchover had not formed part and parcel of the debates at that time.
	I am in a position where, on an issue of quite fundamental principle, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is inviting me to reiterate the government arguments which sustained our position in relation to the charter of the BBC, the situation in relation to the licence fee, the construction of the Bill and the general debate in our community about how we face up to the technological future which beckons with digital opportunities. Believe it or not, I have nothing fresh to say about that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, very kindly said that he is unlikely to persuade me. He is absolutely right. But I am as sharp as he is and I think I am unlikely to persuade him. After all, he has just expressed to me why I am going to fail yet again. But if I am obliged to reiterate the arguments, perhaps I may do so in the briefest terms possible in order not to fill the House with reiterative boredom.
	We regard digital switchover as a highly significant event in television broadcasting. It will bring a "digital-only" world, with a hugely increased choice for viewers, and there will be a need for help. This is a fundamental change in broadcasting technology and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will recognise, switching off a signal which people at the present time are equipped to receive but will not be unless provision is made in the not-too-distant future, will be a dramatic act. The Government needed to think about this very carefully indeed. Having thought about the implications and how we would deal with them, the help necessary for those people in our community who would need it, and how we would organise the process, we reached the decision that the country's significant broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation, should take responsibility for this massive change in broadcasting technology.
	We first proposed way back in March 2005 that the BBC should be responsible for helping to establish and fund the help scheme. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is saying. He is not convinced by the argument that the BBC should be at the centre of this scheme. We have enumerated on many occasions the reasons for the principled position of the Government on this issue and the noble Lord rightly accepted that we are unlikely to change our minds. The Government are very strong in their commitment to such fundamental principles and rarely, if ever, change their mind. They would change it only when circumstances require flexibility. In this instance, we are committed to the principle that we have reiterated on many occasion.
	The noble Lord has recognised that we have now gone a long way down the road of implementing the principle by the agreement with the BBC on the help scheme. I recognise his valiant efforts and I am impressed by his arguments. They are strong, but not as strong as the Government's.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not respond to the issue of the policy review group and the project board. Essentially, it is a question of where the buck stops. This division of responsibility appears extraordinarily artificial. Why has it been set up in that way and who has overall responsibility?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government, of course, are responsible for the overall policy but the BBC is responsible for ensuring that the assistance is delivered in accordance with the agreement which has been assigned and is now before us. The project board and policy review group are separate in order to reflect the distinction. The review group is advisory, not executive; and the project board is the executive board. They are merely the mechanics by which the scheme will be operated. As to the BBC fulfilling its obligations under this scheme, as I indicated earlier, the BBC is not free from scrutiny in Parliament and, in its annual report, it will be expected to comment on the implementation of the scheme.
	So those are the broad responsibilities of the BBC and I hope the noble Lord will recognise that they are consistent with a carefully thought-out obligation on the BBC, a principle on which we stand and of which, I recognise, he remains critical.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that vigorous defence of government policy. It is good to see Ministers rising to the challenge in such circumstances.
	I am not only critical but sceptical. I think the reason for having a policy review group and a project board is extremely unclear. Although the BBC's press release claims it is a precondition for its agreement, with the Government responsible for policy and the BBC for delivery of the scheme, it is not a very clear situation. The BBC Trust will act as a kind of referee and so the BBC will decide whether something is policy or whether it is a part of the project, which again is peculiar.
	No doubt we will see how the whole thing pans out and whether the agreement works in the way it is intended to, as stated by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 not moved.]

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after "persons" insert ", including persons who have moved to a specified region that has completed the digital switchover scheme from a specified region that has not completed the digital switchover scheme,"

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this amendment also came up in Grand Committee. It would ensure that those entitled to the help scheme could still receive help if they moved to an area that had completed digital switchover from one that had not yet begun the process. As I explained in Grand Committee, we are concerned that people who are eligible for the scheme could miss out on help just because they have moved or are moving to a new area.
	I gave the illustration of a partially sighted student who is eligible for help in his university town, where switchover has not yet taken place, but who after graduating gets a job in a town that has completed digital switchover. That student might well fall between the cracks, which would be an unfortunate state of affairs.
	The amendment is an attempt to seek assurance about such circumstances. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, accepted the philosophy behind it. He said that, in developing the help scheme, the Government wanted to simplify the basic eligibility rules as far as possible, bearing in mind the complexity that can quickly surround social security benefits. He said that,
	"an eligibility window needs to be tied to the event in each switchover region ... Following discussions with the consumer expert group, we have opted for a date one month after BBC1 in analogue disappears".—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 257.]
	That means that people meeting the eligibility criteria but moving into an area after that date will not qualify. The Minister said that they would need to make their own arrangements.
	The Minister talked about voluntary networks to be set up by Digital UK and so on. He said that the Government believed that the priority should be to help those affected at the point of switchover rather than people moving into an area subsequently. That was the logic of the Minister's reply. However, at the end of his response, he acknowledged the harshness of the absolute cut-off point. He said that the amendment,
	"raises some interesting points that we want to reflect on".—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 259.]
	I took some comfort from what the Minister said; therefore, I was extremely surprised to see that the scheme contains no flexibility. The cut-off point is one month, as originally stated. That is disappointing. I hope that the Minister has further comments and comfort to give to those who might be affected, who would fall between the cracks and be unable to get assistance in these circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for returning to the issue. I recognise his motivation: as he graphically said, people might fall between the cracks and would not receive help. He is concerned that people should be covered as far as possible.
	We listened carefully in Committee but, as we said then, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, ought not to exaggerate the number of people in the categories to which he refers. The help scheme is restricted; there will not be a huge number of eligible people. He talked about people moving to a new area after switchover schemes had been completed; but the elderly, for example, have a much lower propensity to move than the rest of the population, for the obvious reasons of their emotional commitment to their home and the disturbance involved in moving. We do not see the potential for the massive social problem that there might be if the scheme applied to the whole population.
	The noble Lord will also appreciate the problems arising as a result of the technological basis of the scheme. The help scheme will be implemented on a region-by-region basis—by independent television regions—as digitalisation takes place. The regions will follow the order of switchover. It is not possible to organise the scheme on a basis other than seriatim across the country, as it will take several years to complete. We have tried, therefore, to tie the eligibility period to switchover in each ITV region. In a process that lasts several years, we could not make a more elastic commitment.
	The help scheme agreement sets out that the eligibility period begins eight months before the first analogue services in a region cease and extends until one month after the final analogue transmitters in the region are switched off. We have not opted for a single qualifying date in each region, such as six months before switchover; although that would be simpler, it would exclude people who began receiving the qualifying disability benefits some months before switchover. We are mindful of the noble Lord's point that the scheme should be flexible. The one-month run-on beyond switchover is also important to ensure that people can claim for a short period once analogue services disappear. We recognise that some people will slip through the net, as the noble Lord suggested. The final date on which applications from eligible households will be accepted will be one month after switchover.
	Someone moving to a converted area from a region that has not yet converted to digital will not qualify for the help scheme. They will need to make their own arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that that is unfair. As in Committee, he gave examples of what he regarded as its unfairness. However, we will require the scheme operator to have in place infrastructure long after switchover occurs in any one region. It is a big operation and the caravan moves on. Switchover will take place by ITV area. The process will take place over a set period and then the whole operation will move to the next region, as we have clearly identified.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that in a few residual cases—we maintain that there are likely to be few—there should be a continuing function in the region that has already completed the switchover. The cost of that would be significant, and we do not think that it is merited by the likely size of the problem.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says and understand his motivation. In an ideal world we would like people to be aware of the system from the day it starts and to be eligible for help at any stage during the process. Indeed, the noble Lord would prefer an extended period after completion to mop up what is left. We live in the real world. This is a big operation, and the vast majority of people will know well in advance that switchover is to occur. They will have time to apply for help and to regularise their position. There is a period beyond actual switchover when they can still apply. It is unrealistic, however, for us to have an entirely open-ended situation. The costs of that would be huge, and we do not believe they are merited by the numbers that are likely to be involved. This is a case where the noble Lord's principles have to meet the real world. I know that always hurts him, but we find ourselves in this position from time to time. We have a scheme that we think will meet the requirements of our people.
	We would want to be reassured on this matter. I cannot think of anything more likely to enrage a population than for a signal to be switched off when they have not been informed; to see their television set die on them when they have not been warned nor given the ability to get help when they were entitled to it. We will ensure that the scheme is scrupulous on those issues. Reality intrudes, though, which is why we have a limited period for exception in each region that the scheme moves through.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Reality keeps intruding into his replies, I see. We are all keen to see practical schemes that are cost-effective. I am just disappointed, and rather sad, that further consideration could not have been given to the question of "mopping up", as the Minister said. It is a matter of what is practical and cost-effective. A month seems to be unduly short, but I have no doubt that it will be the Minister and his colleagues at the DCMS who will bear the wrath of the public if there are problems with that cut-off date. Who knows what will happen in practice? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Howard of Rising: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Clause 106, page 58, line 26, after "6" insert "of that Schedule"

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 9 would place a duty on the BBC to provide the National Audit Office with accounts in order for the NAO to scrutinise them and publish an annual report on the expenditure incurred in the course of disclosing information under the Act. The amendment has been redrafted, taking into account the fact that it would be undesirable to place a statutory duty on the NAO to report on a specific item.
	The new Amendment No. 10 would enable the National Audit Office to investigate the BBC's expenditure under the disclosure of information in the scheme. Importantly, the amendment gives the NAO the power to insist on being given the relevant information. It would have been preferable to be able to require a report on the cost of the scheme itself; however, as the Bill is drafted, that is not possible. Paragraph 5(c) of Schedule 2B of the help scheme goes some way towards that, though I note that there is no requirement or encouragement for the NAO to make available a report. Will that provision stay in the scheme if the scheme is revised?
	My noble friend Lord Astor has highlighted on a previous occasion the inconsistency of exempting the BBC in general from scrutiny by the National Audit Office, as that might compromise editorial independence, and the compulsory scrutiny by the NAO of the BBC World Service. Spending £600 million to help the disadvantaged has nothing to do with editorial independence, and not a lot to do with broadcasting. As has been said today and on several previous occasions, it is a social service dressed up as part of the licence fee to avoid being classed as taxation. As such, it should be monitored.
	While on the subject of the £600 million, will the Minister confirm that, just as any surplus to the £600 million already set aside will be met by the taxpayer, so any of the £600 million not spent will be returned to the taxpayer? It would be quite wrong for the taxpayer to take the obligation and not have the corresponding benefit if costs are below expectation. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 was originally my amendment in Committee. Since then, my noble friend Lord Howard has put forward Amendment No. 10, which is much superior to Amendment No. 9, but as they are a group we can debate them together. I realise, having received a letter from the Minister, that one cannot command the National Audit Office to do something; one can only prod, advise or otherwise encourage it, and that is what Amendment No. 10 does. This is important. Subsection 5(c) of Schedule 2B of the agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC, which mentions the NAO, does not go far enough. My noble friend's Amendment No. 10 goes further. For all the reasons we talked about on the previous amendment, we must remember that although it is licence fee money, the licence fee is a tax and this is taxpayers' money. It should therefore be scrutinised. I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Maxton: My Lords, I shall come in on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on what happens if there is a surplus rather than an overspend on the £600 million. It has always been my view that the speed at which people are moving to the digital switchover and the way in which the cost of technology is constantly being driven down mean that there probably will be a surplus. If this money is coming out of the licence fee, there is only one place it can go back to if there is a surplus, and that is to the BBC. It cannot somehow be given out to the taxpayer in any other way. That would be to the benefit of the BBC, as it could then use any surplus to improve its programmes.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support in particular Amendment No. 10, which I agree is a better amendment than the previous one. I am slightly disappointed because it looked as though this was going to be an Astor family set of amendments. On the original Marshalled List, the new amendment was in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and I thought there was some family conspiracy here to make sure that these amendments were agreed to.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, made it clear exactly what the obligations under the Communications Act 2003 were regarding the BBC. It is effectively the BBC Trust that is under an obligation to examine the value for money achieved by the BBC in the use of public funds, and then the NAO is tasked with carrying out individual value-for-money reviews. The logic of what he said in Grand Committee was entirely consistent both with the principle of the previous amendment and with this one. The NAO genuinely seems to have a role to play, in terms of value for money, in this project with which the BBC is entrusted. I am sure the Minister has looked back on what was said, but, in everything but name, it would be right and proper for the NAO to carry this out. The logic ofthe Minister's previous speech seems to have been directed towards that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred to previous occasions on which the National Audit Office and the BBC had cropped up and, by heavens, I certainly recall those occasions. There is an issue of principle here: the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and some other noble Lords were very keen that the National Audit Office should have pretty well unhindered access to the BBC. We resisted that view at the time of the Broadcasting Bill, we resisted it on the charter renewal, and we are going to resist it now.
	On principle, we do not think that the National Audit Office should have unhindered access to the BBC because we do not think that that is the way in which the BBC should be accountable to the nation. But clause 79 of the BBC agreement requires the trust to examine the value for money achieved by the BBC in the use of public funds and gives the National Audit Office a key role in contributing to the fulfilment of that obligation. The trust is required to discuss regularly with the Comptroller and Auditor General the scope of its value-for-money audit programme and which individual reviews within that programme would be especially suited to the National Audit Office. The trust must then make necessary arrangements with the National Audit Office or with suitable organisations to carry out individual value-for-money reviews in accordance with the audit programme.
	I understand the pressure for the National Audit Office to have a stronger role. I have listened to those arguments enough in the past, and they have some merit. We have had those debates of principle and they have been settled in far more significant fora than the debate on this Bill, which is limited to a help scheme for digital switchover. We agree that robust arrangements are necessary to guarantee that the right amount of help goes to the right people and we believe that the Bill provides for them.
	Clause 41 of the BBC agreement already makes provision for the BBC to publish an annual report about its switchover-related activities, which will include the help scheme. Schedule 2 paragraph 5 of the help scheme agreement deals with value for money and makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the trust to secure value for money in the BBC's operation of the help scheme. Schedule 2 paragraph 7 of the help scheme agreement requires the BBC to prepare annual accounts, which will of course be published and audited independently.
	Perhaps I can give the House some solace. The BBC trust has already initiated discussions with the National Audit Office about the arrangements for reviewing the value for money of the BBC's implementation of the help scheme. Amendments to the Bill are not the right way to structure these arrangements. Our view is that arrangements for National Audit Office value-for-money scrutiny of the BBC need to work within the current framework of its regular involvement, as set out in the BBC charter and BBC agreement, about which the House had many long hours of useful debate.
	In addition, the National Audit Office may consider the implications of the continuing role for the DCMS in relation to determining scheme policy under clause 2 of the scheme agreement. The agreement in no way affects the National Audit Office right to scrutinise the department's ongoing responsibilities for the help scheme.
	The National Audit Office will play its part within the framework of its responsibilities with regard to the scheme. The amendments would act as a relatively modest Trojan horse but let us remember that the Trojan horse, while not that huge, brought disaster to one of the most significant cities in that part of the world. It is a Trojan horse to indicate that the way in which the BBC should be accountable is through the National Audit Office, and I have no doubt that if noble Lords can find a way, they will bring Ofcom into the frame again, and we will go back over all the other debates in principle that we have had over the past three or four years. I hope that we will not do that today. We have a robust framework in place; the National Audit Office has its limited part to play in that, but the amendments are a considerable step too far. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the argument and withdraw the amendment.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support. I cannot say that I agree with the Minister, but I do not expect that he thought I would. I suppose I should be grateful for the miserable crumb of solace that he gave me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Kinds of information referred to in section 1]:

Lord Howard of Rising: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Clause 2, page 2, line 37, leave out from "section" to end of line 38 and insert ""information of a prescribed description" means information prescribed in Schedule 1"

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 goes hand in hand with Amendment No. 18.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think he probably meant to refer to Amendment No. 18A.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 and 18A would ensure that the type of information to be disclosed under the legislation was set out clearly and unequivocally in the Bill. The new schedule lists the type of information as set out in paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Notes except for the national insurance number. It seems surplus to include the national insurance number, which, as has been acknowledged by the Government during the passage of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, is not always reliable data.
	The Minister noted in Committee that the Government have a draft order showing how they intend to use the powers to disclose information. It seems odd, therefore, that if the Government are so sure of how they will use these powers, they will not commit to including them in the Bill. In addition, there is no guarantee that the present Minister will remain in her post. Therefore, it would be even more appropriate for the Government to commit to including the information-sharing powers in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had a certain amount of debate on this in Committee. When the Bill was being debated in another place, we produced a draft order setting out how we plan to use the powers in an order that we intend to make immediately after Royal Assent. The amendment would effectively remove this power and introduce the new schedule.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agrees that the power that we are seeking is a legitimate use of delegated power. If it were not so, I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, several supporters from the Back Benches and the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would be on their feet, seriatim or even together, to attack the Government for having fallen foul of the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its critical position and asking what the Government were going to do about it. They cannot voice that criticism on this occasion because, in its sixth report of Session 2006-07, the committee said:
	"This bill is to give legal authority for the disclosure of social security and war pensions information, with a view to maximising take-up under the proposed Digital Switchover Help Scheme. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have provided a delegated powers memorandum ... to explain the delegations in clause 2. The delegations are not inappropriate and there is nothing in the bill which we wish to draw to the attention of the House".
	That was mentioned in Grand Committee, and the House will forgive me for mentioning it again. If we have a clear position from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that we are operating well within our powers, the criticism must be greatly reduced.
	We do not expect the information needed to be different from that set out in the draft order and the Explanatory Notes. It would be foolish for us to lose the flexibility that the use of delegated legislation would confer and which, as I have just indicated, we are fully entitled to utilise. We do not agree that the use of secondary legislation amounts to a blank cheque. We would have had criticism from that committee if that were the case.
	In our view, including the detail in the Bill would not confer any additional protection. All it would mean, in the absence of an order-making power to extend categories, is that we would have to introduce further legislation if the list of items was not absolutely correct. Nothing would be gained, but we would lose essential flexibility.
	I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, but he will recognise that we are acting in full compliance with the appropriate powers. We have an obvious resistance to detail being included in the Bill, because everyone will recognise the rigidity that that imposes in circumstances where change may need to be effected. I hope that the noble Lord, on reflection, will think that the Government have got the position about right.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I am sure that the Government have got the position just about right. But if they are right, why can it not be included in the Bill? I do not believe that the Government need the flexibility that the Minister seeks. They should know by now what is required for this rather simple operation. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Offences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Interpretation]:

Lord Howard of Rising: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Clause 5, page 4, line 42, at end insert ", whether by digital terrestrial, digital satellite, digital cable or any other platform and regardless of provider"

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, this amendment was raised in Committee, where I was glad to receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who thought the amendment "very sensible". The Minister also supported the argument, stating that,
	"there is absolutely no disagreement between us in what we seek to see occur".—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 281.]
	The Minister commented in Committee that, as the Bill is drafted, it is platform neutral. I accept what he says but, whereas he is confident that the wording in the Bill is adequate, I believe that it would benefit from being strengthened as suggested in the amendment.
	Platform neutrality means informing the public of all available services. Exemplary though the BBC is, it must inevitably be contrary to the BBC's natural instincts to promote the activities of its competitors. The digital help scheme could be changed in the light of what happens at Whitehaven, and the BBC may well be consulted on changes. It would be valuable to include this modest amendment in the Bill to help to ensure that the present commitment to platform neutrality in the scheme is preserved. As it is government policy, I very much hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, which underlines that policy. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the terms in which he moved this amendment, which would extend the definition of digital switchover in the Bill to cover all current methods by which digital television can be provided. When we discussed this matter in Grand Committee, I emphasised that what is contained in the Bill is a definition; it is used to define "switchover help functions"—that is to say, the purpose for which the DWP and others can disclose information. The current wording is certainly neutral on the form in which digital broadcasting takes place. That is why we do not think that there is any need for an amendment.
	However, the noble Lord has pressed me again and therefore was not entirely reassured by what I said in Grand Committee. In direct response to his question, I want to emphasise to him that the Government have consistently said that the help scheme will be platform neutral. I can on this occasion assure him that the Government will not agree to amendments that alter that position. I hope that he will accept that I could scarcely be more categorical than that. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance. It is good of him and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 17:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
	"Digital switchover scheme
	This Act shall not come into force before the digital switchover scheme is published and presented to both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is the same sunrise clause that I put forward in Grand Committee, but this time it is with rather different motives. In Grand Committee, the amendment reflected the uncertainty surrounding the scheme. That was before we had in our hands the digital switchover help scheme, which has been welcomed. It certainly gives a great deal of certainty about the shape of the scheme. Now we can make a judgment on the scheme and the Bill as a whole. But there are still a few loose ends.
	As I mentioned in Grand Committee, in slightly less than seven months' time, we will be beginning the process of digital switchover in Whitehaven in Cumbria. In Grand Committee, we discussed whether the procurement of accessible equipment for audio description could be made in time for switchover in Whitehaven. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, said:
	"Given the timing of Whitehaven, it is possible that there will be no set-top boxes matching the core receiver requirements, so it may be that the scheme operator has to provide boxes currently on the market which most closely match the requirements".—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 266.]
	There is no DTT box currently on the mainstream market that can receive audio description, which is one of the main core receiver requirements. There is a specialist DTT receiver available from Portset that delivers audio description and talking menus, but it has been indicated to those who have briefed me that this product is likely to be prohibitively expensive. However, as the Government have acknowledged, audio description is currently available in Whitehaven via Sky subscription and the Sky freesat service.
	The noble Lord, Lord Evans, also said that the Government would welcome a DTT audio description solution. It is only fair to point out that the Government were in a position to deliver a DTT audio description solution by commissioning accessible equipment as recommended by the consumer expert group, but they have not done so in time for Whitehaven. Unless the Government can commission a set-top box that can receive audio description before November, blind and partially sighted people in Whitehaven are likely to be offered Sky freesat to be able to receive audio description. There are three reasons why that is not an ideal solution.
	First, as was pointed out in Grand Committee, freesat gives access to audio description but does not deliver accessible remote controls or other useful features such as voice output of channel or programme identification. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, acknowledged in Grand Committee, better equipment should reduce the level of support visits needed by staff working for the targeted help scheme contractor.
	Secondly, it will undermine the principle that there should be one standard equipment offer available under the scheme, designed to meet minimum agreed standards for accessibility as set out by the Government. The position of the Consumer Expert Group is that providing accessible equipment as standard will benefit the maximum number of people while excluding no one.
	Thirdly, it will also undermine the Government's policy of platform neutrality, which the Minister has been eloquent about, in the promotion of digital television.
	Organisations such as Sense and the RNIB are seeking the following commitments from the Government: that they will explore all options to ensure that the Whitehaven targeted help scheme delivers a fully accessible box to all help scheme recipients rather than an off-the-shelf, inaccessible box; that if option 1 is fully explored and proved not to be possible, they will discuss with specialist equipment manufacturers such as Portset the possibility of providing blind and partially sighted people in Whitehaven with a solution that provides audio description and some form of spoken menu output—at a minimum, spoken channel and programme identification; or, if those two options are not possible and blind and partially sighted people in Whitehaven are given off-the-shelf equipment that delivers audio description but does not meet the other core receiver requirements agreed by the Government, they must be offered the chance to exchange that for more accessible equipment when it is commissioned by the Government for use in other regions. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans promised to consider these points. I look forward to hearing more about the Government's plans in that respect.
	Fourthly, equipment commissioned for use in other regions of the country, including borders in 2008, must meet the core receiver requirements. The organisations briefing me have been told that the BBC and the DCMS expect that boxes for the main scheme will fully comply with the core receiver requirements but would appreciate a significantly more robust assurance than this. I hope that the Minister can give some of those assurances, as that has been the entire point of moving the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We are finishing on a high and constructive note. The noble Lord has expressed his anxieties about the first stage of digital switchover and the need for reassurance that good progress is being made. I hope to reassure him on that. Whitehaven is not a guinea pig or an experiment. Digital technology is robust and proven and already in use across the country, and switchover is the product of years of planning. What is important is that Whitehaven is the first area in which switchover is taking place, so I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity to reassure the House on the successful work that has been done thus far.
	Digital UK wrote to all households in Whitehaven in March and has taken responsibility for claims, and more than 2,000 claims have been submitted so far. Details will be transferred to the operator as soon as the decision has been taken on who the operator should be. So far, four bidders have tendered full bids as best and final offers for Whitehaven. They are: BT, Capita, Eaga and Vertex. It is expected that contracts for Whitehaven will be awarded in June. The tender of the main scheme is being taken forward in conjunction with the Whitehaven procurement. Contracts for the main scheme will not be concluded until December.
	On the point that the noble Lord raised about equipment, we are optimistic that the equipment provided in Whitehaven meets or is very close to meeting the core receiver requirement and are confident that audio description on digital for blind people will be available for Whitehaven.
	The noble Lord also mentioned the core receiver standard requirements for equipment for the main scheme. The agreement ensures that the equipment for the main scheme must meet minimum requirements and I can give the noble Lord and the Consumer Expert Group that assurance.
	I emphasise that the anxieties that the noble Lord expresses will be at the front of the minds of those involved with the scheme—and Whitehaven is soon upon us. I heard his point about not infringing the principles of the scheme with regard to platform neutrality. That is an important consideration, but we feel that progress is being made within the dates that I identified, with regard to Whitehaven and the contracts for the scheme as a whole. I am grateful to the noble Lord for using this amendment to give me the chance to update on progress.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which was helpful. These are very technical matters and I simply ask that the Minister and his colleagues look carefully at the various options set out in what I have to say, which comes directly from those organisations concerned with whether the core receiver standard requirements will be met in the Whitehaven project. There are considerable anxieties. I am very pleased that the Minister is delivering an optimistic message about the ability to meet those standards for the Whitehaven project.
	The answer to a lot of this is to have continuing dialogue with those delivering the scheme in Whitehaven, whichever of the four organisations it may be, and ensuring that it is open for the voluntary organisations that have concerns to be kept in touch on progress on procurement of the equipment. I am not sure that they are fully briefed about the exact progress being made; I am pleased that the Minister believes that the equipment will meet the standards, as that is all that those organisations want. If it does not meet the requirements, there is a very strong case for substitute equipment being put in place subsequently. I realise that the Minister cannot give me an undertaking about this. After all, Whitehaven might be the one place where the core standard requirements are not being met, which would be extremely unfair to those partially sighted and others who are the users of that equipment. I hope that the department will consider that point when it comes to procure and deliver the equipment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and my noble friend Lord Maxton. I was asked on an earlier amendment what would happen to the £600 million if it were not all spent. I regret that in my reply I forgot to respond to that highly specific and germane point. We do not regard that money as part of the BBC licence settlement as such; it is additional to that and is specifically for the help scheme. If less than £600 million is spent on it—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated that he thought that might be the case; certainly my noble friend Lord Maxton said that—the Government would take into account any surplus, which would obviously affect the settlements for any future licence fee. We do not regard the £600 million as just an additional extra to the licence fee; it is intended for the specific purposes of this scheme.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that intervention. It was an opportune moment to intervene. Even on Report the Minister is irrepressible. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 18 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 18A not moved.]

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons on Thursday 10 May with a Lords amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to. The Commons amendment was ordered to be printed.
	House adjourned at 6.31 pm.